In Brown v. MRS BPO, LLC, No. 1:20 CV 06762, 2023 WL 6198815, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2023), Judge Gettleman dismissed an FDCPA premised on a debt collector's use of a local area code to get debtors to answer calls. When Judith Leavell (“Leavell”) became delinquent with respect to certain debts, including a debt from a Mercury Credit… Read More
In Altanie Hansen, Plaintiff, v. Santander Bank, N.A.; UAR Direct, LLC, d/b/a United Auto Recovery; 11th Hour Recovery, LLC, Defendants, No. 22-CV-3048 (SRN/TNL), 2023 WL 5533536, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Aug. 28, 2023), Judge Nelson found that a repossession company and the assignor were both subject to the FDCPA/1692a(6). To be bound by the provisions of the FDCPA, Defendants must… Read More
In Minser v. Collect Access, Nos. B318325, B321996, 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3029, at *13-18 (May 24, 2023), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision affirmed a judgment against a debt collector arising out of alleged improper service, holding that 1788.15's requirement that a debt collector "know" that service of process was not properly effected really means "constructive"… Read More
In In re Wells Fargo Forbearance Litig., No. 20-cv-06009-JD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76443, at *17-18 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2023), Judge Donato found that state collection laws are preempted by the FCRA if they impact on credit reporting. Wells Fargo says that plaintiffs' claims under state consumer protection laws are preempted by the FCRA. Dkt. No. 172 at 14.… Read More
In Brayton v. Alltran Fin., LP, No. 1:21-cv-309-MOC-WCM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72396, at *12-14 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2023), Judge Cogburn dismissed an FDCPA premised on an argument that calls showing the area code local to the debtor on the debtor's caller ID were deceptive. Plaintiff's claim under Section 1692e(10) is predicated on the theory that it was false or… Read More
In Aguilar v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, No. H049860, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 22 (Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2023), the California Court of Appeal found that the Rosenthal Act incorporated the federal FDCPA’s materiality standard, and affirmed an anti-SLAPP motion filed by a debt collector. Whether the nature of the relationship between OneMain Financial and OneMain Financial Issuance Trust is… Read More
In Scott v. Credit Consulting Servs., No. H049063, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5210, at *21-24 (Aug. 23, 2022), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision reversed summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the debt collector. The misleading character of a covered communication is material if it could "cause the least sophisticated debtor to suffer… Read More
In Richmond v. Medicredit, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-00068-KDB-DSC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130092, at *8 (W.D.N.C. July 22, 2022), Judge Bell denied an FDCPA defendant's summary judgment motion. The Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Medicredit reported Richmond's debts as disputed to the credit reporting agencies ("CRAs"). The FDCPA protects consumers from certain… Read More
We previously reported on this case here: https://www.severson.com/consumer-finance/district-court-cal-finds-no-fdcpa-claim-based-on-reporting-account-as-disputed-when-debtor-did-not-dispute-the-debt/ Now, again, in Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01692-SKO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114028, at *4-8 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2022), Magistrate Oberta again granted a Motion to Dismiss, but again gave leave to amend, on whether credit reporting constituted debt collection activity. The purposes of the FDCPA are "to eliminate… Read More
On June 29, 2022, the CFPB issued an Advisory Opinion on collection of "convenience fees". https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-moves-to-reduce-junk-fees-charged-by-debt-collectors/ A copy of the Advisory Opinion can be found here. Severson has been following the CFPB's evolving position(s) and regulation of "convenience fees". CFPB-2017-S&WConvenience-Fees-Bulletin; 2018-AmericanBarAssociation-Article-on-Convnience-Fees Referring to its 2017 Compliance Bulletin, the CFPB stated: For example, in 2017, the CFPB issued a compliance bulletin… Read More
In Snyder v. Finley & Co., L.P.A., No. 21-3997, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16512, at *1 (6th Cir. June 15, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit explained how, and when, a debt collector can be found liable when losing litigation on the debt itself; i.e. does the debt collector ipso facto violate the FDCPA when it loses… Read More
In Thompson v. Renner, No. 21-1366, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706, at *10-12 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that a garnishment application to a state court was a communication under under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) But even without state-specific rules regarding affirmative representations, filing a garnishment request without reasonable belief that… Read More
In a strange fact pattern, in Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01692-SKO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72102, at *11-14 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022), Magistrate Judge Oberto dismissed FDCPA claims derived from Plaintiff's complaint that the debt collector reported the Account as disputed when the Plaintiff previously had written to the debt collector to advise that he did not… Read More
In Almada v. Krieger Law Firm, A.P.C., No. 21-55275, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1946, at *4-5 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a dunning letter was not deceptive because "fees" claimed were "paralegal" fees. Almada argues that Kriger's assessment of the prelien fee violates the FDCPA because the fee was not… Read More
In Mariscal v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, No. ED CV 19-2023-DMG (SHKx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171374, at *4-8 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2021), Judge Gee dismissed, a second time, the Plaintiff's Rosenthal Act Class Action challenging a mortgage company's "pay-to-pay" fees. The fee itself need not be a debt, as long as it is connected to the collection of a… Read More
In Canady v. Kaps & Co. (USA) Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 4:20-CV-1253-CLM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148878, at *7-9 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2021), Judge Maze found that an FDCPA Plaintiff stated a 1692e(8) claim. Kaps also argues that Canady's complaint fails to state a claim under § 1692e(8) because Canady alleges that she disputed the debt only after Kaps… Read More
In Wood v. Sec. Credit Servs., LLC, No. 20-cv-02369, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135926, at *5 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2021), Judge Norgle denied summary judgment against a debt collector due to a question of fact regarding the debt collector's knowledge of a dispute regarding the reporting of the debt. The District Court outlined the legal standards under 15 USC… Read More
In Mott v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-15744, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16085 (9th Cir. May 28, 2021), the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of an FDCPA case in an unpublished decision. Mott points to two letters, sent on February 23, 2016 and March 17, 2016, in which Trojan specified an 8.63 percent interest rate, when, based on… Read More
In Klein v. Affiliated Grp., Inc., No. 19-3562, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 10602 (8th Cir. Apr. 14, 2021) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on behalf of debt collectors related to claims they violated the FDCPA in connection with the assignment of a collection agreement. The plaintiff owed money to a hospital, North Memorial… Read More
In Smith v. Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd. (8th Cir. 2021) 990 F.3d 640, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of consolidation actions under the FDCPA against the same debt collection law firm and declined to hold that a FDCPA claim is stated ipso facto because the debt collector lost the underlying collection action. In underlying collections actions… Read More
