FDCPA (Fed & State)

In Marquez v. Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., 2016 WL 4651403, at *4 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found a debt collection law firm's complaint deceptive. Paragraph 12 is misleading to the unsophisticated consumer both as to the proper timing to respond to the complaint and as to the manner of response. A plain reading… Read More

In Provo v. Rady Childrens Hospital-San Diego, 2016 WL 4625556, at *2 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Miller dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim with leave to amend because the Plaintiffs had not pleaded any concrete injury under Spokeo.  Here, the only harm Plaintiffs plead is in reference to phone calls made by CMRE's codefendant, Rady, which Plaintiffs allege caused “undue stress, anxiety, and frustration....”… Read More

In Brooks v. Leon’s Quality Adjusters, Inc., 2016 WL 4539967 (E.D. Cal. 2016), Judge Thurston granted summary judgment to a repossession company under the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act. Moreover, courts have determined repossession companies, such as Leon’s Quality Adjusters, are not generally “debt collectors” subject to liability under the FDCPA. See, e.g., Montgomery v. Huntington Bank, 346 F.3d 693, 699… Read More

In Anenkova v. Van Ru Credit Corporation, 2016 WL 4379296, at *5–7 (E.D.Pa., 2016), Judge Savage recognized that he was bound by Douglass, but nevertheless recognized a benign language exception and found that a debt collector's disclosure of a bar code did not violate the FDCPA. Having recognized a benign language exception, we turn to whether the exception applies to… Read More

In Jackson v. Blitt & Gaines, P.C., 2016 WL 4376514, at *1 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that garnishment proceedings are not subject to the FDCPA's venue provisions. At issue in this appeal is whether a wage-garnishment action under Illinois law is a “legal action” on a debt against a consumer under the… Read More

In Quinn v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2016 WL 4264967, at *4–5 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge Bucklo rejected a Spokeo challenge to an FDCPA class action grounded in the Defendant's alleged contact with represented debtors. I am unpersuaded. As an initial matter, despite SLS's suggestion to the contrary, Spokeo does not stand for the proposition that a procedural violation of a… Read More

In Daubert v. NRA Group, LLC, 2016 WL 4245560, at *4 (M.D.Pa., 2016), Judge Caputo found that a Douglass-glassine window violation confers Article III standing under Spokeo.  Similarly, here, Plaintiff's injury is also the unlawful disclosure of legally protected information. This injury is “clearly particularized,” as Plaintiff alleges that it was his personal identifying information that was disclosed. This injury… Read More

In Franklin v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., 2016 WL 4248035 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a contract was formed between the City parking lot operators and parkers, resulting in a "transaction" that formed a debt under the FDCPA. Two parts of the definition need further explanation. First, although the statute does not… Read More

In Gomez v. Oxford Law, LLC,  2016 WL 4174321, at *2–3 (3rd Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a TCPA violation did not automatically constitute an FDCPA violation. Specifically, Gomez argues that Oxford Law violated this provision not by making a threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken, but rather by actually taking… Read More

In Lyon v. Bergstrom Law, Ltd., 2016 WL 4161107, at *2–3 (E.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Drozd denied a motion to dismiss alleging FDCPA violations based on voicemail messages that did not disclose the FDCPA's mini-Miranda. Section 1692e(11) includes a non-exclusive list of conduct that constitutes a false or misleading representations. Section 1692e(11) provides the following conduct is a violation of the… Read More

In Davis v. Hollins Law, 2016 WL 4174747, at *4–5 (9th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collector's identification of itself in a  voicemail message complied with the FDCPA because a least sophisticated debtor would have known who the call was from in light of prior settlement discussions between the debtor and… Read More

In Owen v. LNV Funding, LLC, 2016 WL 4207965, at *3 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found nothing inherently deceptive about filing stale proofs of claims in bankruptcy court. Thus, the Bankruptcy Code contemplates that creditors will file proofs of claim for unenforceable debts—including stale debts—and that the bankruptcy court will disallow those claims upon the… Read More

In Godinez v. Law Offices of Clark Garen, 2016 WL 4059718, at *1 (C.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Carney dismissed a state law debt collection counter claim filed in response to an FDCPA action because the debt collection claim was permissive, not compulsory. Godinez claims that Defendants violated the FDCPA and the RFDCPA by engaging in unlawful debt collection practices, and Best… Read More

In Parham v. Seattle Service Bureau, Inc., 2016 WL 4039665, at *3 (11th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals found debt collection in connection with insurance subrogation claims was exempt from the FDCPA. Our decision in Hawthorne squarely controls the outcome in this case. Like Andrew Parham's sister, the plaintiff in Hawthorne was involved in an automobile accident, allegedly resulting from the… Read More

Director Cordray's prepared remarks are here:  http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/prepared-remarks-cfpb-director-richard-cordray-field-hearing-debt-collection/   The Proposals under Consideration are here:  http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20160727_cfpb_Outline_of_proposals.pdf Read More

In Scribner v. Works & Lentz, Inc., 2016 WL 3981435, at *1 (C.A.10 (Okla.), 2016), the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit resolved the FDCPA's statutory conflict prohibiting communications which directly or indirectly disclose the debt (15 USC 1692c(b) and permissible communications to obtain location information (15 USC 1692b) In Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 668 F.3d 1174, 1177-78… Read More

In Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham PC, No. 14-15672 (9th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the FDCPA unambiguously requires any debt collector - first or subsequent - to send a section 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of its first communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt.   A… Read More

In Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Services, Inc., 2016 WL 3854540, at *2-4 (S.D.Cal. 2016), Judge Bencivengo dismissed FDCPA class allegations because the Plaintiff had no evidence of the defendant's net worth. In support of his position, Plaintiff cites to the fact that the FDCPA statutory award is a punitive in nature, i.e., the jury considers defendant's conduct and provides for… Read More

In Johnson-Morris v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 2016 WL 3671468, at *5-6 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge Kocoras denied an auto finance company's motion to dismiss a Plaintiff's FDCPA class action alleging that the Company kept a portion of "convenience fees" that were paid to pay-by-phone vendor.  The Plaintiff alleged: Western Union allegedly “kept a portion of the fees paid by Plaintiff… Read More

In Reddin v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 2016 WL 3743148, at *2-3 (E.D.Cal. 2016), the Court held that the FDCPA only protects third parties where the statute refers to something other than "consumers". Subsection 1692c(a)(1) generally prohibits a debt collector from communicating with a “consumer in connection with the collection of any debt...at any unusual time or place or a… Read More