However, consistent with the Court's prior observations, it is not unlawful for two entities to report the same debt. See D.E. 11 at 6 (citing Spira v. Ashwood Fin., Inc., 358 F.Supp.2d 150, 160 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) and Kohut v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 04-C-2854, 2004 WL 1882239, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2004) for the proposition that Defendant and Union Emergency could both report Plaintiff's debt to a credit reporting agency); see also Macias v. Credit Control, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01158, 2017 WL 2619145, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 16, 2017) (“[D]ebt collectors do not violate the FDCPA when they report a debt, even if another entity has already made a credit bureau report about the same debt.”); Reyes v. IC Sys., Inc., 470 F.Supp.3d 190, 193 (D. Conn. 2020) (“The reporting of a debt that is already reflected on a credit report is not deceptive so long as the second report does not mislead about whether it is collecting the same debt as the previous reported debt.”)
But as a general matter, “debt collectors do not violate the FDCPA when they report a debt, even if another entity has already made a credit bureau report about the same debt.” Reyes v. IC Sys., Inc., 470 F.Supp.3d 190, 193 (D. Conn. 2020) (quoting Macias v. Credit Control, LLC, No. 17-CV-1158, 2017 WL 2619145, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 16, 2017), and collecting other cases). Moreover, “[t]hreats to do what one may properly do are not ordinarily deemed improper or actionable.”
, I would still conclude that Smith has failed to state a claim against Caliber. A communication is misleading under the FDCPA when it is “‘open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.'” Reyes v. IC Sys., Inc., 470 F.Supp.3d 190, 193 (D. Conn. 2020) (quoting Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2016)). Here, Smith has not shown that the Caliber mortgage statement was subject to a reasonable but inaccurate interpretation.