[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-306432-105":53,"doc-detail-306432-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","ford-v-bluestem-brands-inc-opinion-and-order","ford-v-bluestem-brands-inc - Opinion and Order","","Opinion and Order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the matter of Kavon Denzel Ford versus Bluestem Brands, Inc. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as well as breach of contract. The Court addresses the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), discusses subject-matter jurisdiction and the applicable plausibility standard, and evaluates the sufficiency of the pleaded allegations and exhibits.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/ford-v-bluestem-brands-inc-opinion-and-order/306432/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/ford-v-bluestem-brands-inc-opinion-and-order/306432.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Genevieve","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-07","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What claims does Kavon Denzel Ford bring against Bluestem Brands, Inc.?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"Ford alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and also alleges breach of contract.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"What motion does the Court decide?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"The Court decides the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What legal standard applies to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in this Opinion and Order?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The Court applies the two-pronged approach from Ashcroft v. Iqbal, rejecting threadbare legal conclusions and assessing whether well-pleaded factual allegations plausibly entitle the plaintiff to relief.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},306432,1790183814,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":141,"read_time":76},1374391974585,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Case 7:18-cv-02695-VB Document 29CoyileMdal0b51C9hares -189 DH  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK  \n--------------------------------------------------------------x  \nKAVON DENZEL FORD,  \nPlaintiff,  \nv.  \nBLUESTEM BRANDS, INC.,  \nDefendant.  \n:  \n:  \n:  \n:  \n:  \n:  \n:  \n--------------------------------------------------------------x  \nOPINION AND ORDER  \n18 CV 2695 (VB)  \nBriccetti, J.:  \nPlaintiff Kavon Denzel Ford, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action against online retailer Bluestem Brands, Inc., alleging violations ofthe Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., as well as breach of contract.  \nBefore the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) . (Doc. \\#15) .  \nFor the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.  \nThe Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.  \nBACKGROUND  \nIn deciding the pending motion, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint 1 and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, as summarized below.  \n1 The Court also considers the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s complaint. See DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) .  \nCase 7:18-cv-02695-VB Document 29 Filed 03/05/19 Page 2 of 8  \nDefendant, an online retailer doing business as Fingerhut, allows customers to apply for aline of credit through its website, purchase items, and pay for those items in monthly installments.  \nOn January 19, 2017, plaintiff alleges he opened an account with defendant with a $300 credit line and placed an order for a laptop computer. According to plaintiff, defendant sent plaintiff a letter dated January 20, 2017, informing plaintiff that his order for the laptop was canceled because defendant could not confirm plaintiff’s payment or address information, and inviting him to update the information. (Compl. Ex. A at 19) .2 Plaintiff alleges he never received the laptop, and defendant “cannot prove” plaintiff did. (Id. ¶ 65) .  \nOn February 21 and 24, 2017, plaintiff alleges defendant sought to collect payment for the laptop. According to plaintiff, he told defendant he never received the computer, disputed the payment, and required that all future communications be by mail. Despite this notification, plaintiff alleges he received “harassing calls” from defendant “every day[,] sometimes twice aday.” (Compl. ¶ 48) . On March 27, 2017, defendant sent plaintiff a letter noting the company’s records reflected plaintiff’s revocation of consent to being contacted by telephone.  \nOn April 13, 2017, plaintiff alleges he served defendant with a document he entitled“Debt Validation Fidelity Bond.” (Compl. Ex. A at 15) . In the document, plaintiff alleges defendant never fulfilled plaintiff’s order for a laptop, and despite this cancelation, still sought to collect $346. Plaintiff attached to the document “payment” for the debt in the form of a“Certified Promissory Note” and “Offer of Performance.” ([Id](Id. at)[. at](Id. at) 16–17). Further, plaintiff noted  \n2 Citations to the complaint’s exhibits reflect the page numbers automatically assigned by the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system.  \nCase 7:18-cv-02695-VB Document 29 Filed 03/05/19 Page 3 of 8  \ndefendant “tacitly agrees” to compensate plaintiff $150,000 for expenses defending against defendant’s collection attempts. (Id. at 18) .  \nFor the next three months, plaintiff alleges he sought to collect the $150,000 that, according to plaintiff, defendant had “tacitly agreed” to pay. Plaintiff claims he served requests for payment and “notices of default” on September 11, October 4, and November 1, 2017.(Compl. ¶ 54, Ex. C at 67, Ex. D at 72) .  \nAccording to documents attached to the complaint, defendant responded by letter dated September 29, 2017, attaching an account statement and noting plaintiff","cbCaibR4Rr2asMmU","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibR4Rr2asMmU","pdf",121147,8,"English","# Background\n## Account and alleged communications\n## Dispute, revocation of consent, and correspondence\n# Discussion\n## Legal Standard\n## Motion to dismiss framework","[{\"question\":\"What claims does Kavon Denzel Ford bring against Bluestem Brands, Inc.?\",\"answer\":\"Ford alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and also alleges breach of contract.\"},{\"question\":\"What motion does the Court decide?\",\"answer\":\"The Court decides the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).\"},{\"question\":\"What legal standard applies to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in this Opinion and Order?\",\"answer\":\"The Court applies the two-pronged approach from Ashcroft v. Iqbal, rejecting threadbare legal conclusions and assessing whether well-pleaded factual allegations plausibly entitle the plaintiff to relief.\"}]","ford-v-bluestem-brands-inc - Opinion and Order | PDF",1789836574]