Consumer Finance

In Haghayeghi v. Guess?, Inc., 2015 WL 1345302 (S.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Houston refused to strike a TCPA class as an impermissible “fail-safe” class at the pleadings stage. Defendant argues Plaintiff's class definition must be stricken because it is an improper fail-safe class. Defendant maintains the purported class definition seeks to include only those people who received an unauthorized text message,… Read More

In Abdeljalil v. General Elec. Capital Corp., --- F.R.D. ----, 2015 WL 1346850 (S.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Houston certified a TCPA class action.  Plaintiff moved for an order certifying the following class: All persons within the United States who had or have a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who received at least two calls using an automatic telephone dialing… Read More

In Pannetta v. Milford Chrysler Sales Inc., 2015 WL 1296736 (E.D.Pa. 2015), Judge Pappert found no TILA liability against a holder of a vehicle RISC, despite the egregious facts pleaded.  The facts alleged were as follows. The events giving rise to this suit began when Pannetta received a mail solicitation from Milford and MOA. (FAC ¶ 14.) The solicitation stated that Pannetta… Read More

In Gonnella v. Delbert Services Corporation, 2015 WL 1299364 (N.D.Ill. 2015), Judge Darrah found that a TCPA Plaintiff could plead, and had pleaded adequately, that she had revoked consent to to be called on her cellular telephone.  The facts pleaded were as follows. The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of the Motion to… Read More

In Meyer v. Bebe Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 1223658 (N.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Rodgers declined to stay a TCPA text message class action under the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine. Generally, plaintiff alleges she provided her cell phone number at a Bebe retail location in connection with a return/purchase transaction in December 2013– receiving no notice that it would be used for advertising purposes–and thereafter received… Read More

In Shupe v. Bank of America NA, 2015 WL 1120010 (D.Ariz. 2015), Judge Zipps affirmed a Magistrate’s recommendation that a plaintiff’s TCPA claim be dismissed because the calls were to land-lines and not cellular telephones. In addition to the foregoing argument, the Plaintiffs assert once again that the TCPA not only prohibits calls to residential lines using artificial or prerecorded… Read More

In Rhodes v. Olson Associates, P.C., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL 1136176 (D.Colo. 2015), Judge Arguello recognized that the FDCPA’s $500,000 liability cap in class actions would reduce the per-classmember’s potential recovery to less than $1,000 in an individual case. But, Judge Arguello found that this fact did not make the class action devise not the superior way of adjudicating… Read More

In Alborzian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2015 WL 1114426 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2015), the California Court of Appeal addressed whether a sold-out junior mortgage holder violated the FDCPA/Rosenthal Act by collecting on the debt post-foreclosure by the senior. A lender who lends money used to purchase a parcel of property and who holds a junior lien on that… Read More

In Baisden v. Credit Adjustments, Inc., 2015 WL 1046186 (S.D.Ohio 2015), Judge Sargus found that a Hospital’s intake procedures provided sufficient documentationt that a patient consented to be called by an autodialer on his cellular telephone by the Hospital’s affiliate, an anesthesiologist as well as by the anesthesiologist’s debt collection agency. In accordance with this reasoning, this Court finds Plaintiffs'… Read More

In Harnish v. Frankly Co., 2015 WL 1064442 (N.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Davila found that a text-message class action under the TCPA could proceed past the pleading stage. Plaintiff alleged that on May 15, 2014, he received an unsolicited text message from Defendan, where the “from” field of the text message was identified as short code “27367,” and the message read:… Read More

In Gold v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL 1037700 (N.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Freeman granted summary judgment to a credit buyer and it’s debt collection agency, and struck Plaintiff’s expert on credit reporting to the extent he attempted to opine on debt collection issues.  Judge Freeman found expert Evan Hendricks unqualified to testify about debt collection issues.… Read More

In Trabert v. Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2015 WL 880949 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2015), the Court of Appeal previously had held that the three-arbitrator review provision of the standard Law Printing auto purchase contract's arbitration clause is unconscionably one-sided.  In this case, the Court of Appeal held that it can be, and must be, severed by striking… Read More

In Covert v. LVNV Funding, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2015 WL 877133 (4th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a debtor could not bring FDCPA claims against his former creditor for filing improper proofs of claim in the bankruptcy court because the closure of the debtor’s Chapter 13 case terminated all of his rights.… Read More

In Wright v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2015 WL 859604 (E.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Thurston held that an FCRA plaintiff must plead that the furnisher actually received the dispute from the CRA in order to state a claim under FCRA. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a furnisher under the FCRA, and that Defendant “failed to conduct a proper and lawful… Read More

In Alvarado v. Credit Protection Association, L.P., 2015 WL 859109 (M.D.Fla. 2015), Judge Covington rejected the argument made by a TCPA defendant that a “Notice of Representation” from Plaintiff’s counsel was inadmissible as a confidential settlement communication because the letter was relevant to cease-and-desist under the FDCPA and revocation of consent under the TCPA. Although the September Letter contains language… Read More

In Edwards v. Ford Motor Co., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2015 WL 847193 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of class certification of a CLRA claim against a vehicle manufacturer. In an action alleging consumer protection claims based on a vehicle defect, commonality is satisfied when “[t]he claims of all prospective… Read More

In Davis v. CACH, LLC, 2015 WL 913392 (N.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Freeman referred an FDCPA class action to arbitration, finding that the claim was within the scope of the Arbitration, that Arbitration was not inconsistent with the enforcement mechanisms of the FDCPA, and that the Defendant had not waived arbitration by filing a collection action in state court.  Judge Freeman… Read More

In Sepehry-Fard v. MB Financial Services, 2015 WL 903364 (N.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Freeman found, among other things, that an auto finance company was not a racketeer because it securitized an in-pro-per Plaintiffs’ Retail Installment Sales Contract. It is unclear what Plaintiff means when he alleges that Defendant faked the securitization of his loan. There are no facts alleged to suggest… Read More

In Telephone Science Corp. v. Trading Advantage, LLC, 2015 WL 672266 (N.D.Ill. 2015), Judge Guzman found that the TCPA was not limited to consumer protection only; it applied to autodialed calls made to a commercial business' cellular telephones, too. Telephone Science Corporation (“TSC”) brings this case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) seeking relief for telemarketing calls defendants made to… Read More

In James v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2015 WL 720195 (N.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Whyte found that a debt collector sued in an FDCPA class action could enforce the arbitration clause to send the case to arbitration despite the fact that the debt collector already had sued the the debtor in state court on the debt. James brought this class action… Read More