In McIvor v. Credit Control Services, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 6805380 (8th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a debt collector’s reinvestigation of a credit dispute and communications with the CRAs was not a “communication” in connection with the collection of a debt under FCRA because, instead, it was the debt collector’s… Read More
In Lujan v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2014 WL 6698082 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished case found that Civil Code § 1714.10 does not provide protection to a debt collection attorney from a Rosenthal Act claim where no conspiracy claim was alleged and where the debt collection attorney engaged in conduct external to his/her role… Read More
In Wells v. Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, 2014 WL 6474276 (S.D.Miss. 2014), Judge Starrett held that unanswered calls are not “communications” within the meaning of the FDCPA. Section 1692a(2) defines “communication” as “the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). At least one district court has held that… Read More
In Mlnarik v. Smith, Gardner, Slusky, Lazer, Pohren & Rogers, LLP, 2014 WL 6657747 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Freeman held that finds incurred for violating restrictive covenants in an HOA’s CC&Rs was neither a consentual transaction to constitute a “debt” under the FDCPA nor a “consumer credit transaction” under the Rosenthal Act. Because the allegations in the FAC indicate that the… Read More
In Inzerillo v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2014 WL 6660534 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge James found that a debtor’s parents (i.e. third parties) who were repeatedly called in connection with the daughter’s debts were afforded no relief (i.e. lacked standing) under the Rosenthal Act. In their Second Cause of Action, Plaintiffs allege that the “acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous… Read More
In Zweigenhaft v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, 2014 WL 6085912 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), Judge Dearie found a voicemail message did not violate the FDCPA. The case involved a voicemail message stating that a call was from a debt collector coupled with a return phone call where the voicemail message’s intended recipient is disclosed to a third-party. Courts addressing whether overheard voicemails… Read More
In Bunce v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2014 WL 5849252 (D.Kan. 2014), Judge Marten concluded that a creditor’s charge-off of an account did not preclude the debt collector from charging interest. The court concludes that simply because the original creditors charged off the accounts and stopped sending month statements does not preclude the assignee of the accounts from seeking to… Read More
In Jallo v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2014 WL 5810203 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Benitez enforced an arbitration clause in a credit card agreement and ordered an FDCPA/Rosenthal Act class action to arbitration. The arbitration clause in dispute is broad. See Simula, Inc. v. Autolive, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 720–21 (9th Cir.1999) (construing “all disputes arising in connection with” language as broad).… Read More
In Chatman v. GC Services, LP, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 5783095 (D.S.C. 2014), Judge Currie found that two voicemail messages left by a debt collector for the debtor violated the FDCPA because they did not meaningfully disclose the callers’ identity. The facts were as follows. Chatman received two very similar voice messages on her cellular telephone in May 2013.… Read More
In Libby v. Alessi & Koenig, LLC, 2014 WL 5506794 (D.Nev. 2014), Judge Mahan granted summary judgment to a debt collector on the “bona fide error” defense. On December 27, 2012, defendant sent plaintiff a letter advising that the defendant would be taking over the foreclosure process. (See doc. # 10). The December 27, 2012 letter contained language warning plaintiff… Read More
In Aitken v. Debt Management Partners, LLC, 2014 WL 5469876 (C.D.Ill. 2014), Magistrate Judge Hawley discussed the ‘sliding-scale’ applicable to determining recovery of emotional distress, and found that Plaintiff had created a triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment. There was much else to this opinion on the parties’ motions and positions about various purported violations of the FDCPA, but… Read More
In Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 5394517 (6th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that attempts to collect pre-judgment interest before a judgment was obtained violated the FDCPA due to the intersection of the state’s usury statute with its pre-judgment interest statute. This case involves the intersection of the… Read More
In Cokeley v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 2014 WL 5341919 (D.Kan. 2014), Judge Lungstrum granted summary judgment to a debt collector on an FDCPA claim grounded in harassment. The Court first concludes that defendant cannot have violated Section 1692d(5) because it did not call plaintiff “repeatedly or continuously.” Defendant called plaintiff for the first time on September 7, 2013, and… Read More
In Istre v. Miramed Revenue Group, LLC, 2014 WL 4988201 (E.D.Mo. 2014), Judge Barton held that when a debtor tells the debt collector that she is represented by counsel, the debt collector has to stop the call. The facts were as follows: According to plaintiff's factual allegations, the following occurred. Plaintiff, a “consumer” for pur-poses of the FDCPA, resides in… Read More
In Gold v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 5026270 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Freeman rejected the argument that factual questions regarding whether financial transactions were primarily for consumer or business purposes could defeat class certification in an FDCPA case. Plaintiff owes a financial obligation, “namely a consumer credit account issued by HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A,” that was… Read More
In Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, Midland Funding LLC, --- F.R.D. ----, 2014 WL 5017859 (W.D.N.Y. 2014), Judge Froschio did not require an FDCPA class action defendant to prepare audited financial statements where there were none, but, mere production of financial statements did not preclude plaintiff's inquiry into defendants raw data to allow Plaintiff to challenge defendant's valuation of its own business.… Read More
In Decker v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, 2014 WL 4976771 (W.D.Mich. 2014), Judge Quist entitled a Debt Collector accused of "Flat Rating" to enforce an Arbitration Clause in a Credit Card Agreement. The Court finds that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate. The Bank mailed Decker a copy of the Agreement with her credit card, and she accepted its terms by activating… Read More
In De Armas v. Financial Corp. of America, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 4922373 (S.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Martinez found that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by failing to give validation notices in Spanish, or when the debt collector included instructions in Spanish for Spanish speakers to call the debt collector. In Ehrich v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 681 F.Supp.2d 265 (E.D.N.Y.2010), the District… Read More
In Hagler v. Credit World Services, Inc., Judge Hagler found that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by leaving a single voicemail message for the debtor. The facts of this case are few and undisputed. Defendant Credit World Services is a debt collector. On June 11, 2013, Bill Jackson, an employee of defendant, called plaintiff and spoke to him… Read More
In Slorp v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 4800100 (6th Cir. 2014) refused to apply the continuing violation doctrine to an FDCPA case. Application of the continuing-violation doctrine to FDCPA claims would be inconsistent with the principles underlying the Supreme Court's limited endorsement of that doctrine in Morgan. In Morgan the Court differentiated between discrete acts and continuing… Read More
