Consumer Finance

In Espinoza v. Hunt & Henriquez, 2018 WL 6330895, at *2–3 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Magistrate Judge Cousins allowed a CCRAA claim past the pleadings stage. In her complaint, Espinoza alleges that Merrick violated § 1785.25(a). See Compl. ¶ 51. Thus, on the face of her complaint, Espinoza's CCRAA claim is not preempted by the FCRA. See U.S.C. § 1685t(b)(1)(F). Merrick, however,… Read More

In Brodsky v. HumanaDental Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6295126, at *5–6 (7th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied class certification in a TCPA Blast-Fax case. We agree with the D.C. Circuit (and the Sixth and Ninth) that, at a minimum, it is necessary to distinguish between faxes sent with permission of the recipient and those… Read More

In Alarcon v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., 2018 WL 6266558, at *4 (S.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Burns granted summary judgment under the FDCPA in favor of a debt collector who collected, by non-judicial means, on a debt that previously had been adjudicated in favor of the debtor. The question presented in this case is whether that ruling in favor of Alarcon in… Read More

In Ocampo v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, Case No. 16-CV-9388, 2018 WL 6198464 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 28, 2018), Judge Dow found a class representative to be improper.  But, in the class certification analysis, Judge Dow found that the type of debt involved did not involve individual inquiries sufficient to defeat class certification. With respect to the first argument, even though some… Read More

In Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC, v. RingCentral, Inc., No. 17-16528, 2018 WL 6068590 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished case affirmed the dismissal of a TCPA claim against an online fax service. Defendant RingCentral, Inc. (“RingCentral”) operates an online service that allows its customers to send faxes using a cover sheet… Read More

In Jones v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No. 18-CV-1860-BAS-RBB, 2018 WL 6062414 (S.D. Cal. November 20, 2018), the District Court dismissed an FDCPA claim brought against a debt collector arising out of a letter collecting on a time-barred debt. The Court concludes that, in the context of this case, the “will not sue” language could not plausibly mislead the least… Read More

In Razuki v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-1718-LAB (WVG), 2018 WL 6018361 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2018), Judge Burns showed the difficulty that an identity theft victim has in seeking to make a claim arising out of a data breach, dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.  As to the negligence claim, the Court found an absence of appreciable harm.… Read More

In Hatuey v. IC System, Inc., Civ. No. 1:16-CV-12542-DPW, 2018 WL 5982020 (D.Mass. Nov. 14, 2018), Judge Woodlock granted summary judgment to a debt collector on FDCPA and TCPA claims. On the FDCPA claim, the Court held that a cease and desist with respect to one account did not operate with respect to a second account. Although both the calls in… Read More

In Roark v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2018 WL 5921652 (D.Minn., 2018), Judge Magnuson found that no ATDS was used by a caller under post-ACA standards. Roark is incorrect that ACA Int’l has no bearing on previous FCC rulings that determined that predictive dialing systems are autodialers. The D.C. Circuit in fact rejected this very argument. “According to the [FCC],… Read More

In N.L., an infant by his mother and natural guardian Sandra Lemos v. Credit One Bank, N.A., et.al., (No. 2:17-CV-01512-JAM-DB), 2018 WL 5880796 (E.D. Cal. November 8, 2018), Judge Mendez denied Summary Judgment to a caller under the TCPA and Rosenthal Act. The facts were as follows: A customer of Credit One, D.V., provided a phone number ending in -9847… Read More

In Salls v. Digital Federal Credit Union, 2018 WL 5846820 (D.Mass., 2018), Judge Hillman allowed an EFTA claim to proceed against a Credit Union. Brandi Salls (“Plaintiff”) brings a putative class action challenging the practice of Digital Federal Credit Union and DOES 1 through 100 (“Defendant”) to charge overdraft fees when members accounts have sufficient funds to cover the transactions.… Read More

In Clark v. FDS Bank, 2018 WL 5830421, at *1–5 (M.D.Fla., 2018), Judge Mendoza ordered sweeping file-review discovery against a TCPA Defendant, expressing skepticism of the Defendant's claim that a file-by-file review would be required and the expense would be cost-prohibitive. Plaintiff wants to know the following information about collection calls made by Defendants during a four year period: (1)… Read More

In Rivera v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 WL 5624603 (7th Cir. 2018), the Plaintiffs obtained a multi-million dollar award against their former employers in connection with their termination.  The 7th Circuit reversed their defamation claim because they failed to prove special damages entitling them to the award.  As to their FCRA claim, the Plaintiff’s claimed that the Employers violated 15… Read More

In Thornton v. Equifax, 2018 WL 5792816 (M.D.Ga. 2018), Judge Land found that the FCRA pre-empted all common-law state law claims. The facts were as follows: Thornton filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. He received a discharge of his debts on February 7, 2017, including his delinquent accounts with Kinetic. Thornton alleges that although Kinetic received notice of his discharge from… Read More

In Gibbons v. Weltman, Weinberg, & Reis, Co., LPA, 2018 WL 5720749 (E.D. Pa. 2018), Judge Slomsky certified an FDCPA class over objections that the class size compared to the FDCPA’s class action cap could reduce the class members’ individual recovery to such an extent that class certification was not the superior method of adjudicating the mass action. Based on… Read More

In McRobie v. Credit Protection Association, 2018 WL 5608121 (E.D.Pa. 2018), Judge Leeson held that a red, white, and blue texted envelope that said “official notice” on it did not constitute misrepresenting that the communication was from a government official under the FDCPA. Case law interpreting § 1692e(9) is sparse. The parties cite no Third Circuit precedent interpreting the provision;… Read More

In Oya v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2018 WL 5761486 (S.D.Cal. 2018), Judge Huff imposed a increased standard under the CCRAA than mere inaccuracy, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s credit reporting case. The facts were as follows. On June 15, 2018, Plaintiff Aki T. Oya filed for bankruptcy protection. (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo and Select had notice of… Read More

In Fulton, D.D.S., v. Enclarity, Inc., No. 17-1380, 2018 WL 5726133 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that a fax sent to the dentists' office could constitute an “advertisement” that subjected the fax to the TCPA. Fulton alleged that the fax was a pretext to obtain both “participation in Defendants’ proprietary database”… Read More

In Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 3470748, at *2 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., 2018), the Court of Appeal held: We conclude the Laffertys are limited under the plain meaning of the Holder Rule to recovering no more than the $68,000 they paid under terms of the loan with Wells Fargo. Consistent with Lafferty I, we continue to “hold—to… Read More

In Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., Case No. 17-2598, 2018 WL 5623325 (7th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a repossession agency’s enforcement of an administrative fee did not trigger the FDPCA because it was not acting as the automobile finance company’s agent in doing so. The record on summary judgment… Read More