to send the plaintiff its own verification of his debt. The plaintiff objected to the report’s conclusion that he did not plead his fraud claims properly, but, for the reasons already discussed, those objections lack merit. Schneiderman & Sherman objected to Judge Randon’s conclusion that the law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to mail Mr. Lewis a debt validation letter. The defendant believes that the statute does not require a debt collector to mail a debt validation letter to a consumer if another debt collector previously mailed the consumer a letter validating the debt. District courts are divided on this question and the Sixth Circuit has yet to provide guidance. Compare Paris v. Steinberg & Steinberg, 828 F.Supp.2d 1212, 1221-22 (W.D.Wash.2011) (<HOLDING>) with Wright v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt holding that the notice requirement applies only to the first debt collector that communicates with the consumer holding that a debtor has primarily consumer debts if the aggregate amount of consumer debt is more than 50 of the total debt holding that the least sophisticated debtor standard applies to an allegation that a debt collector made a threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken 