Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Devito v. Zucker, Goldberg & Ackerman, LLC

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 7, 2012

Claudia DEVITO, Plaintiff,
v.
ZUCKER, GOLDBERG & ACKERMAN, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Page 565

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 566

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 567

Orlando Molina, Molina Villaplana Colon & Baker, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Aaron M. Bender, Andrew Christopher Sayles, Connell Foley LLP, Roseland, NJ, for Defendants.

OPINION

WIGENTON, District Judge.

Before the Court is Zucker, Goldberg & Ackerman, LLC's (" Defendant" ) Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (" Motion" ) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Claudia Devito's (" Plaintiff" ) Cross Motion for partial Summary Judgment (" Cross Motion" ) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). This Court, having considered the parties' submissions, decides the Motions without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.

For the reasons stated below, this Court GRANTS, in part, Defendant's Motion with respect to alleged violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA" ), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f, and DENIES, in part, Defendant's Motion with respect to the alleged violation of FDCPA § 1692g(a)(2). Additionally, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Cross Motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt for a second mortgage. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8-9; Def.'s Br. 1.) On July 2, 2010, Defendant sent a Notice of Intention to Foreclose (" NOI" ) to Plaintiff in connection with the second mortgage. ( See Am. Compl. Ex. A.) On or about July 23, 2010, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant disputing the debt and requesting a validation (" July 23, 2010 Letter" ). ( See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-16; Am. Compl. Ex. B.) Plaintiff claims that almost a year went by and Defendant had not mailed her any verification of the alleged debt. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17.)

On June 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging abusive and unfair debt collection practices in violation of the FDCPA. On February 29, 2012, 2012 WL 664942, this Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and granted Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint.

On March 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint alleging FDCPA violations. (Dkt. No. 16.) Plaintiff contends

Page 568

that the FDCPA applies in this context because she is a " consumer" who received a " communication" from a " debt collector" regarding a " debt," per the definitions set out in the statute. (See Am. Compl. 4-7); see 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

On May 4, 2012, Defendant moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 17.) On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff cross-moved for partial Summary Judgment, as to liability alone, with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.