MONTGOMERY v. TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 5/12/2016. (eaj)

Case 3:15-cv-06617-MAS-LHG Document 13 Filed 05/12/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 76

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LEAH MONTGOMERY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 15-6617 (MAS) (LHG)

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT,
L.L.C.,
Defendant.

SHIPP, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Trident Asset Management, LLC' s 1
("Defendant") motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 8.) This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Leah
Montgomery ("Plaintiff') asserting that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCP A"), 15 U .S.C. § 1692, by sending two collection notices to Plaintiff approximately eleven
days apart, both of which contained a thirty day validation notice. (See generally Compl., ECF
No. 1.) Based on these facts, Plaintiff asserts one cause of action against Defendant for violation
of§ 1692g for "overshadowing the validation notice contained in the [first] [c]ollection [l]etter by
mailing a second [v ]alidation [n ]otice with regards to the same alleged debt within eleven days of
the first letter." (Id.

1

if 34.)

Improperly pled as Trident Asset Management, L.L.C.

Case 3:15-cv-06617-MAS-LHG Document 13 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 77

Motions for judgment on the pleadings are governed by Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. A party may move for judgment on the pleadings "[a]fter the pleadings are
closed-but early enough not to delay trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). "A motion for judgment on
the pleadings will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issues of
fact remain unresolved, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." Nationwide
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 226 F. App'x 153, 154-55 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Soc y Hill Civic Ass 'n v.
Harris, 632 F.2d 1045, 1054 (3d Cir. 1980)). "A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings
may be filed after the pleadings are closed."2 Turbe v. Gov't of the V. I., 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d
Cir. 1991).
Defendant argues that it did not violate the FDCP A because, if anything, it gave Plaintiff
additional rights. (Def.'s Moving Br. 4-9, ECF No. 8-1.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant's sending
of two letters, each with a validation notice, leaves the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as
to her thirty day option to effectively dispute the debt, and therefore, Defendant violated the
FDCPA. (Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 5-13, ECF No. 11.)
The Third Circuit has not decided this issue, but the parties cite to numerous cases across
the country that have. After reviewing the parties' arguments and the case law provided by the
parties, the Court agrees with the Southern District of New York's reasoning in Brenker v.
Creditors Interchange, Inc., No. 03-6500, 2004 WL 594502, at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2004),
and adopts its reasoning herein. Specifically, the Southern District of New York, deciding a case
on very similar facts, found that the two letters in that case "created no reasonable possibility of
confusion in derogation of the debtor's rights" and "[n]othing in the FDCPA prohibits a debt
collector from giving a debtor more than the requisite 30-day validation period." Id. at *2.

2

On October 8, 2015, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 7.)
2

Case 3:15-cv-06617-MAS-LHG Document 13 Filed 05/12/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 78

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. An order consistent
with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

~ lJ-..
Dated:~-2016

3