In Rogoff v. Nat’l Credit Sys., No. 2:19-cv-01131-APG-NJK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204753, at *7-8 (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2020), Judge Gordon denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings to a debt collector collecting apartment rent.

Viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to Rogoff, the complaint adequately alleges a false representation of the amount of the debt. Rogoff alleges that she did not owe anything to the apartment complex because the apartment became uninhabitable, she left the apartment in move-in condition that did not require painting or cleaning, and the security deposit covered whatever amounts she might owe. She alleges that without receiving any communication from the apartment complex, she received a letter from National demanding payment of $3,854.59 without explanation of what that number represented. She alleges that she called National to dispute that she owed anything, after which she received a breakdown purporting to itemize what she owed.  At this stage of the proceedings, I must accept as true Rogoff’s allegation that she did not owe the apartment complex anything. Consequently, she has plausibly alleged that National misrepresented the amount of the debt. The amount of the debt owed is material. And viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Rogoff, it is plausible that an unsophisticated consumer might be misled into believing she owed that amount after being given a breakdown of what the total amount represented even after she disputed that she owed anything. See Crafton v. Law Firm of Jonathan B. Levine, 957 F. Supp. 2d 992, 997 (E.D. Wis. 2013) (holding that “the inaccurate amount of debt could likely shake an unsophisticated consumer’s belief in what she did owe” after being presented with an inaccurate ledger purporting to show what was owed). I therefore deny National’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Rogoff’s FDCPA claim.