FDCPA (Fed & State)

In Jung v. Cottonwood Financial Wisconsin, LLC, 2014 WL 4796756 (W.D.Wis. 2014), Judge Peterson barred Plaintiff's FDCPA claim based on wrongful garnishment due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Jung's complaint and the parties' supplemental materials support defendants' position that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies in this case. Jung alleges that defendants violated both federal and Wisconsin law by using the garnishment notice to collect… Read More

In DeCapri v. Law Offices of Shaprio Brown & Alt, LLP, 2014 WL 4699591 (E.D.Va. 2014), Judge Hudson found a debt collection law firm’s FDCPA validation non-compliant with the FDCPA. Among other violations, Judge Hudson stated: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) by failing to include “by the debt collector” or similar language in the letter's validation… Read More

In Peters v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., here, Judge Fenner held that although TILA may prohibit a creditor –and hence, it’s debt collector – from charging post-charge-off interest, neither TILA nor the FDCPA prohibit the debt collector from charging state statutory pre-judgment interest after charge-off. Defendant’s final basis for dismissal is that even if GE waived the right to contractual… Read More

In Simpson v. Safeguard Properties, LLC, 2014 WL 4652336 (N.D.Ill. 2014), Judge Gotschall certified the following class under the FDCPA: Beginning in October 2012 and ending in February 2013, at the instruction of Midland, representatives of Safeguard left door hangers on Simpson's door on an approximately monthly basis. ( Id. ¶¶ 18–23.) These door hangers all contained the same text. The front… Read More

In Jacobson v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 2014 WL 4636449 (D.Colo. 2014), Judge Daniel found that a Defendant's Rule 68 Offer mooted the FDCPA case. A majority of circuits have accepted Defendant's argument that an Offer of Judgment for the full relief to which a plaintiff is entitled may moot a case. See Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d… Read More

In Pollard v. Law Office of Mandy L. Spaulding--- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 4402213 (1st Cir. 2014), the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals found that an attorneys' debt collection letter contained threats that overshadowed a consumer's 30-day right to dispute under the FDCPA. On October 23, 2012, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter (a copy of which appears… Read More

In Benson v. Energy Solutions, Inc., 2014 WL 4311755 (D.Ariz. 2014), Judge Anderson found that an FDCPA claim premised on a debt collector’s obtaining a default judgment and employing garnishment procedures based thereon was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. “Determining what constitutes a forbidden de facto appeal, however, has sometimes proven difficult for the lower courts.” Kougasian, 359 F.3d at… Read More

In Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing (3d Cir., Aug. 28, 2014, 13-3588) 2014 WL 4235570, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that a debt collector's disclosure of debtor's account number on envelope violated the FDCPA.  On May 16, 2011, Plaintiff Courtney Douglass received a debt collection letter from Convergent Outsourcing (“Convergent”) regarding the collection of a debt that Douglass allegedly… Read More

In Calhoun v. Certegy Check Services, Inc., 2014 WL 4146886 (M.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Whittemore found that a Plaintiff stated a FCRA claim against a check services company for failing to report an account as ‘disputed’ during its reinvestigation. Plaintiff brought this action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt… Read More

In Patrick v. Pyod, LLC,--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 4100414 (S.D.Ind.. 2014), Judge Young held that filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy court on time-barred debt violates the FDCPA. The Eleventh Circuit recently decided a case nearly identical to the one before the court. See Crawfrod v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 13–12389, 2014 WL 3361226 (11th Cir. Jul. 10,… Read More

In Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, 2014 WL 4090809 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Koh found an FDCPA class-action defendant’s Rule 68 offer to the class representative did not moot either the Action or the represenative’s ability to bring class claims. The Court agrees with Persolve that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Persolve's Offer of Judgment is procedurally improper. Persolve's Offer of Judgment was… Read More

In Fonteno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 4058867 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2014), the California Court of Appeal held that a person engaging only in activities leading towards a foreclosure sale is not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. Plaintiffs' “debt collector” contentions rest on their theory that “First American's principal business IS debt collection by… Read More

In Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 2014 WL 4071891 (N.D.Ga. 2014), Judge Duffey held that an entity that acquires a portfolio with both current and defaulted debt is not subject to the FDCPA as to those loans in the portfolio that were in default at the time of the purchase. Judge Duffey held that 15 USC 1692a(6)’s application… Read More

In Russell v. Absolute Collection Services, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 3973792 (4th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a debtor need not first dispute the debt before he can sue under 15 USC 1692e. The Fourth Circuit also held that a debt collector needs to follow up with the creditor if the… Read More

Another Judge Karlton decision. In Davis v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2014 WL 3889971 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Karlton held that it was permissible to ignore the FDCPA’s requirement that a debt arise out of a consumer transaction in situations of identity theft because, well, debt collectors are bad. The issue presented herein is whether a debt collector that attempts to collect… Read More

In Robin v. Miller and Steeno, P.C., 2014 WL 3734318 (E.D.Mo. 2014), Judge Limbaugh treated an oral Notice of Representation given during a collection call like a Miranda warning, requiring the collector to terminate the call once the Notice was given. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a… Read More

In Salvati v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., N.A., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 3719186 (3rd Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that an FDCPA Plaintiff need not have actually paid the illegal fees in order to sue under the FDCPA. The District Court held that dismissal of Count IV was warranted because “Salvati has… Read More

In Fischer v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 2014 WL 3729553 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge England ordered a TCPA and Rosenthal Act claim to Arbitration. Judge England found the TCPA claim within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Plaintiff opposes Defendant's Motion on the grounds that Defendant has not established that its repeated calls to Plaintiff were in any way related to the loan… Read More

In Smith v. Law Offices of Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C., 2014 WL 3695473 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Hayes found that a debtor must plead by clear and convincing evidence that the debtor did not receive a debt validation letter from the debt collector. Congress enacted the FDCPA to “eliminate the recurring problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting… Read More

In GANAS v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 3400536 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Cal.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California was confronted with the question of whether a borrower could bring a Rosenthal Act claim against a mortgage servicer for filing an allegedly incorrect proof of claim in the borrower’s bankruptcy proceeding.  The Court first grappled with the question of… Read More