MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

Last week Jane Bishoplillegard ("Bishoplillegard") filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Act") action against Velocity Investments, LLC ("Velocity") and two law firms, one of which is Blitt & Gaines, P.C. ("Blitt Firm"). Although this Court is contemporaneously issuing its customary initial scheduling order, this memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of what appears to be a problem as to targeting the Blitt Firm as a codefendant.

When Bishoplillegard's Complaint allegations are credited, as is required at this threshold stage,1 she states what appears to be a viable claim under the Act against both debt collector Velocity and the other defendant law firm, which continued to pursue litigation against her despite her having communicated to Velocity and the law firm that she did not owe the asserted debt (Complaint ¶¶ 19-31). But all that is alleged as to the Blitt Firm is that on January 30, 2015 it replaced that other firm (Complaint ¶ 34) about five weeks after the state court had granted Bishoplillegard's motion to dismiss the state court complaint (Complaint ¶ 32), following which that state court complaint was dismissed without prejudice on February 24 (Complaint ¶ 35).

Nothing in those allegations suggests any Act-violative conduct on the part of the Blitt Firm. It would seem that Bishoplillegard's lawyer ought to consider whether the Blitt Firm should be retained as a targeted defendant — and if the answer to that question is "yes," Bishoplillegard's attorney should be prepared to discuss that subject at the initial status hearing.