DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Lindsey Collazo (“Plaintiff”) commenced this putative class action, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, on January 16, 2019. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff alleges that defendants Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (“Resurgent”) and LVNV Funding LLC (“LVNV”) (collectively, “Defendants”) sought to collect a debt from Plaintiff and others in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). (See id.). Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 18). Because the communications at issue were not in connection with the collection of a debt and therefore do not fall within the scope of the FDCPA, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16), including documents attached to the Amended Complaint as exhibits (Dkt. 20). On November 14, 2018, “Resurgent had its initial communication with Plaintiff by mailing her a letter.” (Dkt. 16 at 13). The letter notified Plaintiff that: You are receiving this notice as a result of your recent dispute regarding the above-referenced account. New York state regulations require us to inform you that you have the right to request substantiation of this debt. Your request for substantiation must be in writing, and must include the reference number provided above and a clear statement that you are requesting substantiation of the debt. … This communication is from a debt collector. However, this notice is for informational purposes only, and is not an attempt to collect a debt. (Dkt. 20 at 17). “On or about November 30, 2018, Resurgent had its second communication with Plaintiff” by mailing her a letter. (Dkt. 16 at 17). The letter provided that “Resurgent Capital Services L.P. manages the above referenced account for LVNV Funding LLC and has initiated a review of the inquiry we recently received.” (Dkt. 20 at 18). Prior to receiving both the November 14, 2018, and November 30, 2018, letters, Plaintiff alleges that she neither communicated nor attempted to communicate with Resurgent. (Dkt. 16 at 19). Plaintiff further alleges that at the time Resurgent sent both letters to Plaintiff, “Resurgent knew that Plaintiff was represented by counsel.” (Id. at
21-22). Plaintiff has identified two putative classes in her Amended Complaint. (Id. at 3-8). Plaintiff alleges that members of the first putative class were harmed because in its November 14, 2018, letter, Regent did not disclose that it was “attempting to collect a debt and that any information [would] be used for that purpose,” in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11). (Id. at
