Smith v. Simms Associates, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs’ actions, alleging that defendant failed to identify name of creditor to whom debt is currently owed in violation of section 1692g(a)(2) of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Record showed that: (1) defendant sent form letters stating name of original creditor as Comenity Capital Bank and its client as “Pay Pal Credit;” and (2) plaintiffs had Pay Pal accounts, and that Comenity Capital Bank was owner of plaintiffs’ debts. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant presented sufficient information about plaintiffs’ creditor and debts in manner that unsophisticated consumer could understand, where letter identified single creditor, as well as commercial name to which plaintiffs had been exposed. Fact that letter identified Comenity Capital Bank as “original” rather than “current” creditor did not require different result, since: (1) letter, by informing plaintiffs that they could request name of original creditor if different from current creditor, alerted plaintiffs to possibility that original and current creditor was the same entity; and (2) FDCPA does not require use of any specific terminology to identify creditor.