## Facts

- Solomon and Solomon, P.C., a debt-collection law firm, attempted to collect Janet Ellis’s unpaid Citibank credit card debt (alleged to be $17,809.13).
- The firm sent Ellis an initial collection letter that included the written validation notice required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), stating she had 30 days to dispute the debt.
- About two weeks later—before the 30-day validation period expired—the firm caused a Connecticut State Marshal to serve Ellis with a state-court summons and complaint seeking to collect the same debt.
- The summons and complaint were not accompanied by any statement explaining that the lawsuit did not change, shorten, or cancel Ellis’s FDCPA validation rights described in the earlier notice.
- Ellis did not dispute the debt during the 30-day period.
- Ellis sued Solomon and Solomon, P.C., and two of its attorneys (Julie S. Farina and Douglas Fisher) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that serving process during the validation period “overshadowed” the validation notice in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Ellis, finding that service of the summons and complaint during the validation period, without clarification, violated the FDCPA.
- Defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether, under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) and the “least sophisticated consumer” standard, a debt collector violates the FDCPA by serving a state-court summons and complaint during the 30-day validation period without explaining that the consumer’s § 1692g dispute rights remain available.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Ellis.
- The court held that the FDCPA does not impose a per se rule forbidding debt collectors from filing and serving a lawsuit during the validation period.
- Even so, the court held that service of a summons and complaint—without any accompanying clarification about the continued availability of the § 1692g dispute right—can “overshadow” or be “inconsistent with” the validation notice.
- Applying the least sophisticated consumer standard, the court concluded that formal service of process could reasonably make a consumer think the time to challenge the debt had already expired or that only the state-court response deadlines mattered, effectively negating the earlier 30-day dispute notice.
- Because defendants provided no explanation reconciling the lawsuit with the validation notice, their conduct violated § 1692g(b), and summary judgment for Ellis was proper.

## Legal Principles

- 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) requires debt collectors, after an initial communication, to provide written notice of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt within 30 days and to request verification.
- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b), a debt collector may continue collection activity during the 30-day period, but those activities and communications may not “overshadow or be inconsistent with” the consumer’s statutory dispute rights described in the validation notice.
- The Second Circuit assesses potential confusion using the “least sophisticated consumer” standard; a violation occurs if the collector’s conduct would leave such a consumer uncertain about how to exercise § 1692g rights.
- Litigation activity can qualify as collection activity for § 1692g(b) purposes; filing and serving a lawsuit is allowed during the validation period only if it does not create confusion about the continued availability of the FDCPA dispute process.
- When a summons and complaint are served during the validation period without any statement addressing how the lawsuit relates to the 30-day dispute right, the service can be inconsistent with the validation notice because it may imply that the consumer must shift immediately to court procedures and that the statutory dispute window has effectively closed.

## Conclusion

Ellis v. Solomon and Solomon, P.C. holds that while the FDCPA allows a debt collector to sue during the 30-day validation period, serving a summons and complaint without clarifying that the consumer still has the full § 1692g dispute period can confuse the least sophisticated consumer and unlawfully overshadow the validation notice, violating § 1692g(b).


Ellis v. Solomon and Solomon, P.C., 591 F.3d 130 (2010)