Bravo v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state viable claim plaintiff’s action alleging that defendant violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by writing letter to plaintiff, but sending said letter to plaintiff’s attorney that demanded payment of two debts that plaintiff claimed had been extinguished in prior settlement. While section 1692c of FDCPA prohibits contact with consumer regarding debts once consumer notified debt collector he is represented by counsel and prohibits debt collector from continuing to communicate with consumer once consumer has refused to pay, section 1692c did not apply, where section 1692c permits debt collector to freely communicate with plaintiff’s attorney. Fact that instant letter was actually addressed to plaintiff, but sent to plaintiff’s attorney, or that alleged debts had actually been discharged did not require different result. Moreover, instant letter was not impermissibly deceptive, since plaintiff’s attorney would be able to determine true status of any alleged debt.