the district court erred in dismissing three claims against URS on the ground that URS did not author or transmit the ,letter to Rogers or exercise any control over Capital One Services. For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that a party may “use” misleading communications in violation of the FDCPA even without authoring or transmitting the communications or controlling the party that did so. We need not pursue the matter further, however, because, even if the allegations that Capital One Services and URS acted in tandem were sufficient to demonstrate URS’s “use” of the February 4, 2010 letter, we would still affirm dismissal for failure to state any plausible claim that the letter violates the FDCPA. See Algarin v. Town of Wallkill, 421 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Our reasons for concluding that Rogers fails
holding that in reviewing a district courts decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo the decision can be affirmed on any ground that finds support in the record including an alternate ground recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court holding that a grant of summary judgment may be affirmed on any independent ground revealed by the record holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by record holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record