Schaefer v. IC Sys. Inc.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDERDarlene Schaefer (“Schaefer”) sued IC System, Inc. (“ICS”), a debt collector, claiming that ICS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the New York General Business Law, and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by calling her cell phone to collect a debt during the pendency of an automatic bankruptcy stay. ICS moves to dismiss Schaefer’s Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted as to Schaefer’s claim under 15 U.S.C. §1692d and denied in all other respects. IOn a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Krys v. Pigott, 749 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2014). The Court limits its consideration “to facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” Leonard F. v. Israel Disc. Bank of New York, 199 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 1999).Schaefer alleged as follows. On September 20, 2016, she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. Am. Compl.18. Prior to that date, she had incurred a debt, which an unspecified creditor submitted to ICS for collection. Id.

15-17, 27. Although Schaefer does not know the exact date ICS assumed responsibility for collecting the debt, other debt collectors routinely check credit reports and public court records to determine whether a debt is subject to bankruptcy proceedings. Id.