Here, on the other hand, all the documents Plaintiff received listed “Mohammad Hedayati” as the debtor and, importantly, made clear that the debt related to the Corkwood Property. Even the least sophisticated debtor knows his own address and can understand that, if he receives debt collection notices that list an address he doesn’t recognize and a name similar to his own, that the debt collector likely has the wrong individual. In fact, that is exactly what happened in this case—as soon as Plaintiff saw the Corkwood Property listed on documents, he knew that he did not owe the debt and that Defendant was targeting the wrong individual. Thus, this Court cannot say that Defendant violated the FDCPA
just because Defendant targeted the wrong person when it mailed and served documents that themselves did not contain false statements and in fact clearly listed the address of the Corkwood Property. See Donohue
, 592 F.3d at 1034 (“In assessing FDCPA
liability, we are … concerned with … genuinely misleading statements that may frustrate a consumer’s ability to intelligently choose his or her response.”). . . However, even under the reasoning set out in Gallegos
, Plaintiff in this case has not shown that Defendant violated the FDCPA
. Although Defendant continued to target Plaintiff with its debt collection efforts even after Plaintiff notified Defendant that he was not the debtor, Plaintiff did not give Defendant the same kind of clear notice as the plaintiff provided the defendants in Gallegos
, and in this case Defendant did
attempt on multiple occasions to confirm the debtor’s information. In Gallegos
, the plaintiff wrote a letter clearly stating “that he was not the debtor, that his father was the debtor, and that his father did not live at [Plaintiff’s address].” Id.
(emphasis added). Here, however, Plaintiff orally told Defendant that he was not the debtor, but never informed Defendant that he had a brother named “Mohammad Hedayati” who was the debtor. Nor did Plaintiff ever provide any evidence that he was not the debtor, let alone any written notice or dispute of the debt. In addition, Defendant in this case conducted numerous public records searches, checked the title to various properties, and spoke with Plaintiff’s employee and Plaintiff’s tenant, all of which reinforced Defendant’s belief that Plaintiff was in fact the debtor.