Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-debt collector’s motion for judgment on pleadings in plaintiff-debtor’s action alleging that defendant’s dunning letter, which listed both “original” and “current” creditors, was misleading under Fair Debt Collector’s Practices Act (FDCPA). While plaintiff argued that dunning letter failed to clearly and effectively identify name of creditor to whom debt was owed, defendant’s letter expressly named one entity as current creditor, which was sufficient under FDCPA. Also, Ct. of Appeals found that unsophisticated consumer would understand that plaintiff’s debt had been purchased by “current” creditor and rejected contention that letter should have spelled out that current creditor had purchased debt from original creditor.