In De Armas v. Financial Corp. of America, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2014 WL 4922373 (S.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Martinez found that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by failing to give validation notices in Spanish, or when the debt collector included instructions in Spanish for Spanish speakers to call the debt collector.  In Ehrich v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 681 F.Supp.2d 265 (E.D.N.Y.2010), the District Court in New York had found that “While “the FDCPA doesn’t extend to every bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretation” of a debt collection letter, a Spanish-speaking consumer’s interpretation would not qualify as such. Schweizer, 136 F.3d at 237 (quoting Rosa, 784 F.Supp. at 3). Therefore, defendant’s argument that Spanish-speaking consumers do not represent the objective, least sophisticated consumer is incorrect.”   Accordingly, the Erlich court held that, “Although the notice was provided in English, from the perspective of Spanish-speaking consumers, it was not plainly stated if they were unable to understand the English. Instead, the letter left the Spanish-speaker uncertain as to his or her rights, failing to clearly state the available options. The phone number was much more than merely supplementary to the notice because notice in Spanish was essentially never provided. Quite the contrary, the inclusion of the phone number encouraged the Spanish-speaking consumer to call and potentially waive his or her rights to challenge the validity of the debt. The sentence gave Spanish-speakers the misimpression that they understood the appropriate steps to take if they had questions, when in fact, their rights were not explained to them.”  Judge Martinez in DeArmas distinguished the Erlich decision, finding:

Plaintiff responds that because Defendant chose to communicate with Plaintiff also in Spanish in the Letter, the notice would only be sufficient if the required notifications were in Spanish. (D.E. No. 19 at 6) (citing Ehrich v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 681 F.Supp.2d 265 (E.D.N.Y.2010)). Defendant responds that this case is distinguishable from Ehrich, because the Letter in this case does not expressly invite Spanish speakers to call Defendant with questions about their account in the text of the same paragraph furnishing the required FDCPA notice. See Molina v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., LLC, 2012 WL 3067883, at *3 (M.D.Fla. July 27, 2012). Moreover, Defendant argues that the Letter does not refer in Spanish to the consumer’s account, account number, or debt. Id . The Court agrees with Defendant that this case is distinguishable from Ehrich and finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim in Count I.