OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 15.) For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND I accept as true the facts, but not the conclusions, set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. 1 (“Compl.”)), as supplemented by documents integral thereto. This Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) dispute arises out of a debt collection letter that Defendant Halsted Financial Services, LLC sent to Plaintiff on or about April 4, 2019. (See id. 29; id. Ex. A.) Halsted had been retained by Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC to collect the debt, which was originally owned by Citibank, N.A. (Id.
23-24, 27.)1 The letter is a single page and contains information regarding the original and current creditors, balance details, and payment options. (See id. Ex. A.) As relevant to the instant motion, the letter’s penultimate paragraph states, “Please note that a negative credit bureau report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency by the current account owner if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations. This notice in no way affects any rights you may have.” (Id. Ex. A.) The next and last paragraph of the letter, which appears in the same font and size as the preceding paragraphs, contains the FDCPA’s “mini-Miranda” warning and validation notice and reads as follows: This communication is from a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request from this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different than the current creditor. (Id. Ex. A.) Plaintiff filed suit on February 11, 2020, alleging that the credit reporting language in the penultimate paragraph of the letter violates the FDCPA by overshadowing the validation notice. (See id.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the credit reporting language coerces payment from the consumer through the threat of imminent credit reporting during the initial thirty-day validation period and therefore violates 15 U.S.C. §§1692g and 1692e. (Id.
