Hi. Copyright 2022 Grow Cedar Valley. 5% (just like our nation's cops <stream 2002); Branum v. Clark,927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. Waterloo Post Office. I went down and talk to someone and they told me someone should contact me the same day its been 24 hours and I still havent heard anything. Box 307 Box. 2012); Clomon, 988 F.2d at 1319. VGM & Associates. Rosenberg v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, 556 F.Supp.3d 157, 21-cv-0175 and 21-cv-0779 (E.D.N.Y. 8, 2004) (finding no FDCPA violation where "the first paragraph's language regarding resolution of the debt does not overshadow or contradict the fourth paragraph's instructions regarding the right to dispute the debt. Congress passed a law requiring us to use private collection agencies (PCA). Balk, 2013 WL 6990767, at *5; see Williams v. Citigroup Inc.,659 F.3d 208, 213-14 (2d Cir. PO Box 18009. Id. 15 U.S.C. This is crazy, I've never missed a day of mail in 20 years in Cedar Falls or Janesville. Address360 Westfield Ave., Ste 300, Waterloo, IA 50701 USA Connect. It makes sense that this machine can sort more mail FASTER than a person! Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint. Notwithstanding the above futility analysis, leave to amend a pleading may be denied where there is "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, [or] undue prejudice to the opposing party. Sept. 24, 2018), order amended on reconsideration, 2019 WL 1900472 (E.D.N.Y. We have not received mail but twice on EASTON AVENUE but twice in the last two weeks I have important papers and credit cards that been sent and have not received them. Lotito, 2014 WL 4659464, at *5; see Castro, 959 F. Supp. 2014)) (noting that the Court "is required to accept the material facts alleged in the amended [pleading] as true and draw reasonable inferences in the [movant's] favor"). po box 2464, waterloo, IA. 1993). P.O. To the contrary, both of these cases hold that the contradiction and overshadowing which occurred was based upon additional language in the collection letters which attempted to mandate an "in writing" requirement to properly dispute a debt where no such requirement existed and thus would confuse or mislead the least sophisticated consumer. Directly below this phrase is the validation notice which begins with the language "[u]nless you notify this office within thirty (30) days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid."