Consumer Finance

In Johnson v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2018 WL 835339, at *1–4 (N.D.Ill., 2018), Judge Shah decertified a TCPA class after the defendant obtained information from a third party provider and compared it to its own records, suggesting that the means by which membership in the class would be determined would be unmanageable. The production of records from Sprint after the close… Read More

In Zondlo v. Allied Interstate, LLC., 2018 WL 827590, at *6 (M.D.Pa., 2018), Judge Munley estopped a debt collector from re-litigating whether the calling system it used was an ATDS. Allied does not dispute that it was fully represented during Morse, and, as previously mentioned, has even agreed to use the deposition testimony from Morse in the instant case, as… Read More

In Ruiz v. Auto Star Motors, Inc., 2018 WL 827835, at *4–5 (E.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court found that the dealer's exercise of a right-to-cancel clause that operated if financing was not obtained did not violate TILA. The first preliminary argument proceeds as follows: “TILA and its enabling regulations require the creditor to make disclosures before consummation of the transaction.”… Read More

In Tatis v. Allied Interstate, LLC., 2018 WL 818004, at *3 (C.A.3 (N.J.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a letter that offered to "settle" a time-barred debt could be deceptive. Thus, Huertas stands for the proposition that debt collectors do not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) when they seek voluntary repayment of stale debts, so… Read More

In Hogue v. Allied Collection Service, Inc., 2018 WL 771321, at *4–5 (D.Nev., 2018), the District Court granted summary judgment to an auto finance company who was sued for the way that it reported, and then reinvestigated, an automobile account after a debtor filed Chapter 13. Silver State argues that it is undisputed that plaintiff's auto account was delinquent on… Read More

In Roth v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., 2018 WL 718402, at *4–6 (E.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Seybert denied a debt collector's motion to dismiss an FDCPA class action.  First, Judge Seybert held that the Plaintiff's bankruptcy did not deprive her of standing to sue. Here, after receiving the Letter, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy but did not initially disclose her FDCPA claim… Read More

In Ngyuen v. LNV Funding, LLC, 2018 WL 769415, at *2–3 (S.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Burns entered summary judgment for a debt collector on the basis that the FDCPA plaintiff was precluded from using the FDCPA to challenge whether an underlying debt judgment was obtained by a timely filing. While the Court understands Nguyen’s argument—the California courts only decided that he owed… Read More

In Weller v. AT&T Corp., 2018 WL 748607, at *2–3 (E.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Block struck a TCPA class action because the plaintiff was an inadequate class representative. Dr. Wexler concedes, as she must, that she would have had an interest in a potential fee award to her husband, had he been appointed class counsel. She argues that his withdrawal “mooted” the… Read More

In Rojas v. X-Motorsport, Inc., 2018 WL 734408, at *2–3 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 2018), the Court of Appeals held that a car dealer's rescission form did not violate TILA. Rojas's case is governed by Illinois law, which “mandates that when ‘different instruments are executed together as part of one transaction or agreement, they are to be read together and construed as constituting but… Read More

In Dixon v. General Motors Financial Corporation, 2018 WL 746379, at *4 (E.D.La., 2018), Judge Brown found that a TILA claim was not stated because any violation would have to appear on the face of the document and the Plaintiff had filed suit longer than 1-year after purchasing the vehicle. In Jackson v. Adcock, another division of this district held that… Read More

In McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 2018 WL 692105, at *4 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Rodgers found that a TCPA Defendant used an ATDS during the class period. The record reflects that defendants used three dialers during the class period, namely (i) DAKCS/VIC, (ii) Global Connect, and (iii) TCN. Plaintiffs offer the testimony of Rash Curtis executives who state DAKCS/VIC and… Read More

In SunTrust Bank v. Monroe, 2018 WL 651198, at *14 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 2018), the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a jury's finding that an auto finance company did not dispose of a repossessed vehicle in a commercially reasonable fashion. The jury here was instructed that every aspect of the disposition—method, manner, time, place, and other terms—had to be commercially reasonable, see Tex.… Read More

In Knapp v. Sage Payment Solutions, Inc., 2018 WL 659016, at *7 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Chesney employed a lengthy analysis too long to repeat here to find in a blast-fax case that, because plaintiff could demonstrate no agency facts on which to pin liability to the alleged principal, the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the alleged principal/defendant. For the reasons set forth… Read More

In Noori v. Bank of America, 2018 WL 654168, at *1 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2018), the Court of Appeals allowed a CCRAA claim to proceed against a bank. Bank of America relies on Pulver v. Avco Financial Services, 182 Cal. App. 3d 622 (1986), for the proposition that no private right of action exists with respect to furnishers' liability under the CCRAA. But… Read More

In Lemieux v. Lender Processing Center, 2018 WL 637945, at *2–3 (S.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court dismissed a third-party counter-claim for indemnity on the basis that the TCPA afforded no right to indemnity or contribution. Here, neither the language of the TCPA, nor the legislative history point to the affirmative creation of a right of indemnity or contribution by Congress. Furthermore, in… Read More

In Patterson v. Ally Financial, Inc., 2018 WL 647438, at *5 (M.D.Fla., 2018), the District Court distinguished Reyes, finding a question of fact whether the TCPA revoked consent to be called by an ATDS. The parties disagree over whether the credit application and the retail installment contract, both signed as a condition of financing, are two separate agreements or a single contract.… Read More

In Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, 2018 WL 627453, at *14–16 (Cal.App. 5 Dist., 2018), the Court of Appeal found that failure to disclose that a part was the subject of a recall and was not repaired violated the CLRA. Based on the statutory text, legislative history (which includes the National Consumer Act), the judicial decisions and statutes that existed… Read More

In Lindblom v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 2018 WL 573356, at *5 (E.D.Cal., 2018), Judge McAuliffe found that the class representative was not typical because her claim fell outside the statute of limitations and was not subject to equitable tolling. As proposed by Plaintiff, the class definition includes individuals who paid Speedpay fees during the applicable limitations period, which is on… Read More

In Ferrer v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC., 2018 WL 582584, at *6 (S.D.Fla., 2018), Judge Scola granted summary judgment on a TCPA claim where the calls were manually dialed, despite the fact that the caller owned and used a dialer elsewhere. In his declaration, Gutierrez asserts that the forty-four remaining (44) calls that Bayview placed to Ferrer's cell phone during the… Read More

In Watkins v. Investment Retrievers, Inc., 2018 WL 558833, at *5–6 (E.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court dismissed a Rosenthal Act case based on the 15-day cure right that was exercised by the debt collector. IRI’s second argument has merit. California Civil Code section 1788.30(d) shields from liability a debt collector who “within 15 days either after discovering a violation which is able… Read More