. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s section 1692e claims are time-barred and, for this additional reason, should be dismissed, with prejudice. IV. CONCLUSION

The court in Datiz also dismissed the §1692e claim because Defendant never made any direct Case 2:15-cv-07040-JFB-GRB Document 29-8 Filed 01/31/17 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 317 13 131613912v1 0981430 representations to Plaintiff regarding the processing fee. Similarly here, the Letter sent to Plaintiff does not contain any representations regarding the processing fee; Plaintiff does not allege that he accessed the website, viewed its contents or paid the processing fee.

That Judge Walls in Blaha and Judge Martinotti in Carney both cited to Havens is relevant as Justice Thomas cited to that case in his concurrence in Spokeo as did the Horizon Court. Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Spokeo, explains that when Congress create new private rights – such as those afforded by the FDCPA to receive certain information about one’s rights Case 2:15-cv-06027-ES-JAD Document 46 Filed 06/19/17 Page 34 of 38 PageID: 674 28 (§1692g) and to prevent false, deceptive, and misleading representations (§1692e), Article III standing exists once those private rights have been invaded. One of the cases cited by Justice Thomas in furtherance of this principal was Havens.

. Case 2:16-cv-00250-TRM-MCLC Document 4 Filed 09/09/16 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 32 15 28122073 v1 allegations to the contrary, (see generally Complaint ¶¶ 25-29), and thus her section 1692e claims against MDS should also be dismissed, with prejudice. IV.

Filed 06/13/17 PageID.477 Page 17 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 15 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT B) Threatening a lawsuit against Plaintiff by using the word “settlement” with the intention of implying to Plaintiff that he could be sued upon the purported debt even though any obligation by Plaintiff had been discharged; C) Threatening a lawsuit against Plaintiff by threatening that if Plaintiff did not pay the debt then Defendant would exercise its available remedies, with the intention of implying to Plaintiff that he could be sued upon the purported debt even though any obligation by Plaintiff had been discharged; 68. Additionally, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by using false representations and deceptive means in connection with the collection of the purported debt by the following conduct: A) Falsely stating, “Because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater”, when in reality no interest, late charges, or other charges were being added, which appeared to be an attempt to trick Plaintiff into paying the amount alleged in the March 2016 letter promptly to avoid any further charges being added; B) Falsely implying to Plaintiff that the debt remained viable and enforceable by claiming that it was Plaintiff’s contractual obligation to still pay the purported debt even though any obligation by Plaintiff had been discharged; C) Falsely implying to Plaintiff that the debt remained viable and enforceable by using the word “settlement” with the intention of implying to Plaintiff that he could be sued upon the purported debt even though any

The use of the required execution/garnishment form was not false, deceptive or misleading, was not a threat to take legal action that cannot be legally taken, and was not an unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. Therefore, the claims that Defendant Hosto violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e (5), 1692e (10), and 1692f should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon relief can be granted. 2. Defendant Hosto Is Not Liable for The Constable’s Alleged Failure to Serve Plaintiff With a Copy of the Execution/Garnishment.

1692e(5) Compl., ¶¶ 62-64, 79, 80, 82, 86); (6) “[c]ommunicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false” (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8); Compl., ¶¶ 79-80, 86); (6) false representations or deceptive means to “collect or attempt to collect any debt” (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10); Compl., ¶¶ 62-64, 79, 80, 82); (7) the failure to disclose that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11); Compl., ¶¶ 79); (8) falsely representing or Case 8:17-cv-00427-JFW-JCG Document 17 Filed 05/03/17 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:378 10 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 885695.1 Case No. 8:17-cv-00427-JFW-JCGx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 implying that documents are legal process (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(13); Compl., ¶¶ 79-80, 82); (9) collecting any amount that is not “expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law” (15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1)); Compl., ¶¶ 79-80, 82, 86; and (10) designing, compiling, and furnishing deceptive forms (15 U.S.C. § 1692j; Compl., ¶ 80).

2014, updated at www.nclc.org/library. Materiality is not a requirement under, 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11). Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365, 373 (4th Cir., 2012) Materiality is not element of a FDCPA claim about debt collector's conduct that involved “failure to disclose” “that the communication” was “from a debt collector,” since debt collectors were required to disclose their status in every 17 …the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action.

Defendant FCO made phone calls and sent letters to Phillips to attempt to collect a debt which was not due which violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2), 1692f(1). FCO reported an inaccurate debt on Phillips’ credit reports which violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2) 1692(8), 1692f(1). 3.

Compounding the situation, Plaintiff was represented by counsel for at least two of the three calls (potentially all three depending on when Plaintiff retained counsel); accordingly, any argument Plaintiff was materially misled by an alleged Case 3:16-cv-02437-BRM-LHG Document 52 Filed 12/12/16 Page 17 of 18 PageID: 510 14 omission of debt-collector status is meritless. As such, Plaintiff has substantially failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. CONCLUSION Because Plaintiff has failed to allege BSI has violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c, d, or e, BSI respectfully asks the Court to grant its motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against BSI.