FDCPA (Fed & State)

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

In Spice v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Liebsker & Moore LLC, 2018 WL 525723, at *8–9 (N.D.Ind., 2018), Judge Springmann certified an FDCPA class over defendant's objection that the $500,000 statutory cap would only result in de minimus recovery and, therefore, the class action device was not the superior method to adjudicate the dispute. The Defendant counters that a class action is… Read More

In Lindblom v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 2018 WL 500347, at *6–7 (E.D.Cal., 2018), Magistrate Judge McAuliffe denied an automobile finance company's summary judgment in a class action complaining that its SpeedPay program violated the Rosenthal Act. Defendant does not contend that the Speedpay fee is written or otherwise expressly authorized in the Contract. Rather, Defendant concedes that Contract is… Read More

In Scott v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC., 2018 WL 452359, at *2 (N.D.Ind., 2018), Judge Simon found a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment because, in part, of discrepancies in the defendant's call logs and business records. Scott attempts to cast doubt on the reliability of Monterey’s records of the call history by presenting evidence of the omission… Read More

In Pavlovich v. Account Discovery Systems, LLC, 2018 WL 395487, at *1 (S.D.Cal., 2018), Magistrate Crawford denied merits discovery because she already had ruled that class-discovery should proceed first. This Court issued a prior Order granting plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on November 28, 2017. [Doc. No. 63]. Therein, the Court approved discovery regarding DNF’s financial net worth because it is… Read More

In Smith v. SIMM Associates, Inc., 2018 WL 389089, at *4 (E.D.Wis., 2018), Judge Griesbach granted class certification in an FDCPA case. Defendant maintains that a class action is not the superior method of litigating the issues presented here because Plaintiff arbitrarily limited her purported class. Specifically, Defendant argues that, rather than propose a class that includes all potential consumers… Read More

In Rhinehart v. Diversified Central, Inc., 2018 WL 372312, at *10 (N.D.Ala., 2018), Judge Hopkins dismissed a TCPA claim and found that an FDCPA claim failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Note that “[c]ausing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any… Read More

In Stissi v. Bag Fund, LLC, 2018 WL 354611, at *3–4 (C.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Otis Wright III dismissed an FDCPA case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In determining the applicability of the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, a district court must first decide whether the plaintiff is attempting a de-facto appeal of a state court judgment. Bell, 709 F.3d at 897. A de-facto appeal… Read More

In Verburg v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 2018 WL 346834, at *2–3 (W.D.Mich., 2018), Judge Jonker granted an FDCPA Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to exclude a debt collector's reliance on the bona fide error defense. Lacking binding authority directly on point, the Court concludes that an affirmative defense based on mistake of state law is not available to… Read More

In Skinner v. LVNV Funding, LLC., 2018 WL 319320, at *4 (N.D.Ill., 2018), Judge Aspen found that an FDCPA Plaintiff failed to make an evidentiary record that the Defendant's principal purpose was the collection of debts, post-Henson. The record lacks any evidence establishing the primary purpose of Defendant's business, debt collection or otherwise. Plaintiff presents a list of hundreds of collection… Read More

In Young v. Northland Group, 2018 WL 306023, at *1–2 (E.D.Mo., 2018), Judge Autrey allowed an FDCPA claim to proceed based on the consumer's allegation that the debt collector did not immediately cease communications about the debt after the debtor notified the debt collector of representation by bankruptcy counsel. “The purpose of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices… Read More

In Powell v. Aldous & Associates, P.L.L.C., 2018 WL 278736, at *7–8 (D.N.J., 2018), Judge McNulty dismissed an FDCPA class action based on a letter that allegedly falsely threatened legal action.  Judge McNulty found that the letter did no such thing. Powell claims that the Aldous letter threatens legal action in violation of Section 1692e(5). In that respect, he argues, this… Read More

In Clark v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, 2017 WL 6757224, at *4 (S.D.N.Y., 2017), Judge Bricetti found that the adequacy of service of process was not litigated in the underlying debt collection suit and could form the basis of an FDCPA claim. Thus, pursuant to the transactional approach applied under New York law when analyzing whether an issue was or… Read More

In Huffington v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C., 2017 WL 6626317, at *4 (D.Or., 2017), Judge Acosta granted summary judgment to a debt collection law firm who had changed its name during the course of collecting on a particular debt. Viewing the instant facts through the eyes of the least sophisticated debtor, Heffington's argument here fails for three reasons. First, with… Read More

Severson & Werson's Financial Services Practice Group's Law Bulletin on "California State and Federal Courts Have Different Class Certification Rules on Whether Putative Class-members Must Be Ascertainable" can be found here.   Read More

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 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 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

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 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