In Delgado v. Progress Financial Co., 2014 WL 1756282 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge O’Neill ordered a Plaintiff’s TCPA and FDCPA claims to arbitration. Mr. Delgado does not dispute that he signed the Arbitration Agreement at the time he applied for a loan from Progreso Financiero; nor does he dispute the validity of the agreement. Doc. 14 at 2. Mr. Delgado argues,… Read More
In Masuda v. Citibank, N.A., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 1759580 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Hamilton allowed a Rosenthal Act and Intrusion on Seclusion claim to proceed by a third party who was not the debtor (but was alleged to be). Citibank contends that the first cause of action fails to state a claim because Masuda has not alleged facts showing… Read More
In Strobel v. RJM Acquisitions, Inc, here, Judge Seybert found that a debt collector’s reference to it’s A+ rating with the BBB was not a deceptive or unfair act under the FDCPA. Here, Plaintiff argues that the Letter’s inclusion of an A† rating from the BBB bolsters Defendant’s reputation and decreases the likelihood that the least sophisticated consumer would question… Read More
In Grochowski v. Daniel N. Gordon, P.C., 2014 WL 1516586 (W.D.Wash. 2014), Judge Zilly addressed the impact of a “charge-off” on a creditor and debt collector’s right to collect the contractual rate and the state pre-judgment interest rate. Plaintiff contends that, in “charging off” plaintiff's debt, Capital One waived its right to collect interest at the contractual rate and, as… Read More
In Swelnis v. Universal Fidelity L.P., 2014 WL 1571323 (N.D.Ind. 2014), Judge Cherry addressed discovery in an FDCPA class action. First, Judge Cherry required disclosure of “Training Materials”: Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 9 and Document Request Nos. 4–6, 8, and 11 each seek infor-mation—specifically: training manuals and other relevant documents—that relate to Defendants' Af-firmative Defense of bona fide error. Defendants objected… Read More
In Little v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2014 WL 1400660 (D.Kan. 2014), Judge Martin denied in part and granted in part a debt collector’s Motion to Dismiss an FDCPA claim based upon call frequency. Judge Marten detailed the law on the number of calls permitted and/or permitted per day, and found that, at the Motion to Dismiss stage, the Plaintiff… Read More
In De La Torre v. Legal Recovery Law Office, 2014 WL 1279738 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Magistrate Judge Bartick ordered defendant to produce phone bills, but only for the time relevant in the Complaint and redacted to exclude calls made to parties other than the Plaintiff. Here, the Court concludes Defendant's phone bills are only relevant to the extent they contain evidence… Read More
In Kennedy v. CompuCredit Holdings Corp., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 1284495 (M.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Adams found that an FDCPA Plaintiff stated a claim based on the theory that a Debt Buyer’s “Fresh Start” program violated the FDCPA since participation in the Program was conditioned on waiving certain rights available under the FDPCA, such as debt validation. Plaintiff Kennedy failed… Read More
In Peters v. Coface Collections North America, Inc., 2014 WL 1259778 (D.Ariz. 2014), Judge Martone found that a debtor could not claim the protection of the FDCPA when the debtor had represented at the time of purchase that the goods were to be used for a commercial purpose. The undisputed evidence shows that plaintiff represented to Princeton that Multi Media… Read More
In King v. Legal Recovery Law Offices, Inc., 2014 WL 938559 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Magistrate Judge Westmore held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar an FDCPA claim that is not intricately intertwined with the underlying state court action. The facts were as follows: On January 13, 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant settled the state court action by way of a stipulated… Read More
In Quinteros v. MBI Associates, Inc.--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 793138 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), Judge Kuntz held that a debt collector's letter purporting to charge a $5.00 Processing Fee for payments by phone or credit card violated the FDCPA because the charge was not set forth by the instrument creating the obligation and was incidental to the debt. On February 22, 2012,… Read More
In Claflin v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, 2014 WL 688962 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Alsup refused to stay a federal FDCPA claim filed against the debt collector’s lawyers in an underlying state court debt collection lawsuit. The FDCPA plaintiffs argued that the debt collector’s lawyers had improperly filed the state court action in a distant forum in violation of the FDCPA. … Read More
In Taufen v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., 2014 WL 668019 (D.Minn. 2014), Judge Frank held that an FDCPA plaintiff seeking to prove that a “Notice of Representation” was violated under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) must prove both that a Notice of Representation was given and that the attorney’s name was reasonably ascertainable. Even if the Court were to conclude that… Read More
In Hanson v. JQD, LLC, 2014 WL 644469 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Seeborg held that the Davis Sterling Act – in conjunction with the FDCPA -- may constrain a third party debt collector’s right to collect unfettered costs of collection, but found that the legal theory pleaded by the Plaintiffs to be unclear. Although no California appellate court has directly addressed… Read More
In Miranda v. Integrity Solution Services, Inc., 2014 WL 519239 (D.Colo. 2014), Magistrate Judge Mix ordered discovery of communications between the debt collector and consumer reporting agencies about the debtor’s debt even though no credit reporting allegations were pleaded. Judge Mix framed the issue as follows: The discovery requests at issue seek information and documents that Defendant provided to the… Read More
In De Amaral v. Goldsmith & Hull, 2014 WL 572268 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Orrick granted summary judgment to an FDCPA Plaintiff who found falsity in a debt buyer’s identification in the state court complaint that it was an entity to whom the plaintiffs are “indebted” and who “provided” credit pursuant to a “written agreement.” Judge Orrick found that allegation deceptive… Read More
In Coats v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, 2014 WL 545432 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Magistrate Brennan dismissed an FDCPA Plaintiff’s claim that the debt collector failed to properly validate the debt, finding that the information that the debt collector provided to the debtor was sufficient under the FDCPA. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to cease collection efforts upon plaintiff disputing the alleged… Read More
In Hadsell v. CACH, LLC, 2014 WL 497433 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Lorenz, within the context of a motion for reconsideration, granted partial summary judgment and denied partial summary judgment to an FDCPA defendant alleged to have violated a Cease-and-Desist letter from the debtor and to have violated the FDCPA by praying for 10% interest in the Prayer for Relief in… Read More
In Boon v. Professional Collection Consultants, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 353813 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Huff dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim against a debt collector who had filed and dismissed a state court collection action. Filing a debt collection lawsuit is not a violation of the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act, “even if the debt collector does not at the time… Read More
In Lachi v. GE Capital Bank --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 304436 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Curiel found that a third party lacked standing to assert a violation of a cease and desist letter from the Doan Law Firm. The facts were as follows: Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants and each of them” claim Plaintiff owes them a debt and that, on November 9,… Read More
