Consumer Finance

In Muharemovic v. Client Services, Inc., 2017 WL 6316827, at *4 (E.D.Mo., 2017), the District Court granted in part and denied in part a debt collector's letters that were challenged as falsely threatening litigation.  The letters stated that "If we are unable to arrange repayment, Capital One will send your account to an attorney in your state for possible legal action. Please… Read More

In Silver v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, 2016 WL 1258629, at *2 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Hamilton held that the amendment to the TCPA exempting "cal[s]... made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States" (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)) applied retroactively, thus providing grounds in that case for summary judgment to the Defendant.  In Silver v.… Read More

In Contreras v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 2017 WL 6372646, at *3 (C.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Kato denied production of settlement agreements amongst FCRA co-defendants. Defendant argues the settlement agreements are necessary to determine (a) “whether Plaintiff has been fully compensated for his alleged injuries,” and (b) “the reasonableness of an attorney fee award should Plaintiff prevail on his claims.” JS at… Read More

In Duran v. Quantum Auto Sales, Inc., 2017 WL 6334220, at *5 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision held that the FTC Holder Rule does not limit attorneys' fees but the Plaintiff's recovery against the Holder is limited to those fees/costs that resulted from litigation of claims against it. We therefore turn to Veros's alternative… Read More

In Duran v. Quantum Auto Sales, Inc., 2017 WL 6333871, at *8 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that a car dealer's Benson-tender did not insulate the dealer from liability. In this case, Quantum's pre-litigation offer went far beyond a willingness to take corrective action as contemplated by the drafters of the CLRA. We… Read More

In West v. California Services Bureau, Inc., 2017 WL 6316823, at *2 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Rogers certified a "wrong number" TCPA class.  The facts were as follows: Plaintiffs allege that defendant “repeatedly” called them on their cellular telephones using an autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26, 29-30.) Plaintiffs further allege that they did not provide defendant… Read More

In Stephens v. Comenity, LLC dba Comenity Bank, 2017 WL 6316630, at *2–3 (D.Nev., 2017), Judge Du struck a third party counter-claim against the daughter of the TCPA Plaintiff.  The daughter allegedly gave the telephone number to the Defendant that lead the Defendant to call the Plaintiff. . . .the Court finds that impleader is improper for three reasons: (1)… Read More

In Dupreez v. GMAC, Inc., 2017 WL 6016592, at *3–4 (Md.App., 2017), the Maryland Court of Appeals confirmed that automobile RISCs are not subject to Maryland's usury statute because they are not "loans". Maryland courts have long held that the term “loan” in the Usury Statute does not extend to installment sales contracts for personalty. This is because under Maryland law,… Read More

In CFPB v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 2017 WL 6042221, at *1–2 (N.D.Ohio, 2017), Judge Nugent denied the CFPB's motion for a protective order that would have prevented the deposition of (former) Director Cordray from taking place, clearing the way for (former) Director Cordray's deposition. However, since the filing of the protective order, Mr. Cordray has resigned from… Read More

In Ewing v. Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC., 2017 WL 6049379, at *3–4 (S.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Benitez ordered a TCPA case to arbitration over the consumer's objection that he opted-out. In his opposition, Ewing does not object to or otherwise dispute Ms. Flores's declaration or the attached evidence of his account history. His sole argument is that he “followed the… Read More

In Progressive Health and Rehab Corp. v. Quinn Medical, Inc., 2017 WL 6015810, at *2–4 (S.D.Ohio, 2017), Judge Marbley found that a TCPA blast-fax case was a "fail-safe" class, but striking the class allegations was premature. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's class allegations should be stricken because the proposed class constitutes a “fail-safe” class. (ECF No. 20 at 4). As a… Read More

In Ordinario v. LVNV Funding, LLC., et. al., 2017 WL 6047551, at *1–2 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court of Appeals held in an unpublished opinion that a debt collector did not file suit on a time-barred debt because the credit card debt's statute of limitations had not expired. Ordinario's entire FDCPA and Rosenthal Act action is based on the claim… Read More

A copy of the GAO's letter is here:  GAO Letter on Indirect Financing Rule  The Congressional Review Act requires all federal agencies to submit each rule to Congress and to the Comptroller General, and, as it did with regard to the CFPB's Arbitration Rule, Congress can disapprove of the rule within 60 legislative days by simple majority vote. Read More

In Kunwar v. Capital One, N.A., 2017 WL 5991864, at *3–6 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Koh allowed an FCRA claim past the pleading stage based on the argument that reporting a debt that was "cancelled" by issuance of a 1099-C rendered the reporting inaccurate. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Defendant reported an unpaid balance in Plaintiff's account with Defendant to the CRAs,… Read More

In Mrvich v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2017 WL 5999058, at *2–4 (S.D.Cal., 2017), Magistrate Judge Porter denied production of an FDCPA Plaintiff's tax returns to test whether the debt was consumer or commercial in nature. Defendant moves to compel production of Plaintiff's federal and state income tax returns for the years 2010 to 2012, and her federal and state income… Read More

In Herrera v. First National Bank of Omaha, N.A., 2017 WL 6001718, at *3–4 (C.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Lew denied a TCPA Plaintiff's summary judgment motion arguing that the Plaintiff had revoked consent to be called. “The TCPA does not explicitly grant consumers the right to revoke their prior express consent.” Van Patten, 847 F.3d at 1047 (internal citations omitted). In… Read More

In Jordan Kohler, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC; The Loft Apartments Acquisition, LLC, Defendants., 2017 WL 5973338, at *3–4 (S.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Houston dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim that arose out of collection on a residential lease. Defendant Greystar argues that the Rosenthal Act does not apply to late… Read More

In Marius D. Popa v. Winn Law Group, APC, et al., 2017 WL 6016567, at *2 (C.D.Cal. 2017), Judge Fischer dismissed an FDCPA class action because of the absence of a "consumer" transaction. In the FAC's First, Second, and Third Causes of Action, Plaintiff alleges violation of Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA, as incorporated into the Rosenthal Act, prohibiting “[t]he… Read More

In Ginwright v. Exeter Finance Corp., No. CV TDC-16-0565, 2017 WL 5716756 (D. Md. Nov. 28, 2017, the District Court rejected applying  Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services, 861 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2017), which held that contractually bargained for consent under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) cannot be revoked.  The court in Ginwright went on, however, to deny… Read More

In QDOS, Inc. v. Signature Financial, LLC, 2017 WL 5793973, at *4–6 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal found that the fact that a check for payment for a luxury vehicle was presented by a third party did not obligate the Dealer to conduct an independent examination beyond the face of the check. As a general rule, courts… Read More