Delgado v. Capital Management Services, LP et al.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant-debt collector’s motion to dismiss plaintiff-debtor’s FDCPA action alleging that defendant’s dunning letter that concerned time-barred debt was misleading. Record showed that said dunning letter did not inform plaintiff that debt was subject to statute of limitations defense, and plaintiff alleged that defendant’s use of offer to “settle” said debt gave her impression that underlying debt was legally enforceable.