FDCPA (Fed & State)

In Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 765169 (3d Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a debt collector’s inclusion of the language “please call us toll free at 800–984–9115 or write us at the above address if you feel you do not owe this amount” in its 30-day… Read More

In Lopez v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2013 WL 708701 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Gutierrez found Defendant’s call volume, without more, to be FDCPA compliant. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to put forth evidence that the call volume violates the FDCPA under section 1692d(5). Mot. 2:14–21. Plaintiff's allegations regarding the frequency of Defendant's calls do not rise to the level of… Read More

In Alonso v. Blackstone Financial Group LLC, 2013 WL 687073 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Boone allowed a claim to proceed against an owner of a debt collection agency in disregard of the corporate fiction, following Cruz v. International Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.2012), and explaining: Plaintiff argues that Elsen is a proper defendant since he was the sole owner… Read More

In Esquivel v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 682925 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Burrell found that a company that obtained defaulted debt through merger and acquisition rather than by debt purchase did not ‘obtain’ the debt while the debt was in default for purposes of triggering the FDCPA. The FDCPA explicitly states certain persons are not considered “debt collectors” including:… Read More

In Marx v. General Revenue Corp. --- S.Ct. ----, 2013 WL 673254 (2013), Justice Thomas wrote for the Court, holding that Section § 1692k(a)(3) is not contrary to, and, thus, does not displace a district court's discretion to award costs under, Rule 54(d)(1). Read More

In Flint v. Beneficial Financial I Inc., 2013 WL 552622 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Burrell declined to award reverse-attorneys’ fees under the FDCPA without more than conclusory statements of bad faith. Further, Defendant has not shown that sanctions should be awarded under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), which requires “a finding by the court that [Plaintiff's FDCPA claim] was brought in bad… Read More

In Truong v. Mountain Peaks Financial Services, Inc., 2013 WL 485763 (S.D.Cal. 2013), the District Court rejected application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Noerr-Pennington doctrine to bar an FDCPA claim. Rooker–Feldman “is a narrow doctrine, confined to ‘cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court… Read More

In Schaefer v. First Source Advantage, LLC, 2013 WL 509001 (E.D.Mo. 2013), Judge Shaw found that a TCPA Plaintiff who re-opened his bankruptcy to list the asset gained standing to pursue it, but was estopped from bringing it.  If a debtor fails to list an asset in his bankruptcy schedules, that asset is not automatically abandoned back to the debtor… Read More

In Arutyunyan v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, 2013 WL 500452 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Gutierrez found that Plaintiff’s counsel’s pleadings did not arise to the level of misconduct that would allow an award of reverse attorneys’ fees under FCRA and the FDCPA, but did under other federal law. Under FCRA, the Court explained: As a threshold matter, § 1681n(c) imposes attorneys' fees… Read More

In Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Inc., 2013 WL 268935 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Delaney held: A loan servicer is not encompassed within the statutory definition of debt collector. See Nool v. HomeQ Servicing, 653 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1053 (E.D.Cal.2009) ( Rosenthal Act mirrors federal statute and excludes loan servicers). Read More

Koller v. West Bay Acquisitions, LLC, 2012 WL 2862440 (N.D.Cal. 2012), the District Court held: Plaintiff maintains that because he allegedly acquired extended video rentals and/or the videos themselves without paying for them with late fees or product charges, the Rosenthal Act is applicable. Opp'n at 13. Because there is no binding authority as to whether late fees on video… Read More

In Moore v. CCB Credit Services, Inc., 2013 WL 211048 (E.D.Mo. 2013), Judge Sippel found no actionable FDCPA harassment, but held the matter over for trial on the issue of consent and charges for calls under the TCPA.  The District Court found that the number of calls did not amount to actionable harassment: It is undisputed that CCB made 65… Read More

In Bongiovanni v. World Financial Network Nat. Bank Recovery, 2013 WL 142080 (W.D.Wash. 2013), Judge Leighton denied a Plaintiff’s claim that a Bank’s use of the term “Recovery Department” rendered it a ‘debt collector’ under the FDCPA for collecting in the name other than the creditor’s own name.  Plaintiff's lawsuit is based on her claim that the July 28 letter… Read More

In Tu v. Camino Real Chevrolet, 2013 WL 140278 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Otis Wright III held that an automobile finance company is not a ‘debt collector’ under the FDCPA. Westlake is in the business of taking assignment of retail installment sales contracts from automobile dealers. (Mot. at 2.) It then becomes the holder in due course of those contracts. The… Read More

In Bank of America, N.A. v. Sea-Ya Enterprises, LLC, 2013 WL 126268 (D.Del. 2013), Judge Andrews found that the purchase of an aircraft was not primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, thus allowing a Bank to pursue a post-repossession/post-sale deficiency balance notwithstanding purported irregularities in the liquidation sale notices. This suit is a loan deficiency action brought by Plaintiff… Read More

In Miranda v. Field Asset Services, 124047 (S.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Curiel found that an FDCPA Plaintiff could not bring a creditor under the FDCPA for hiring a third party debt collector.   Plaintiff alternatively argues that OneWest is vicariously liable for FAS's alleged debt collection activities. Plaintiff relies on Fox v. Citicorp and Schutz v. Arrow Fin. Services, both of… Read More

In Worsham v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., 2012 WL 5503980 (4th Cir. 2012), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a debt collection company could call a third party to obtain location information more than one time so long as its belief that the third party had information about the debtor was reasonable. Although third parties may understandably find… Read More

In Raab v. Nationwide Collection Agencies, Inc., 2013 WL 53760 (W.D.Mich. 2013), Judge Bell found Plaintiff's threadbare FDCPA claim that defendant wrongfully threatened to garnish her wages failed to state a claim. The statutory violations alleged are simply a formulaic recitation of the prohibitions contained in the statutes. Plaintiff has not alleged what Defendant said or did to represent or imply that… Read More

In Caw v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2013 WL 30567 (W.D.Mo. 2013), Judge Gaitan found no telephonic harassment for 35 calls in a  year and 100 calls in 10 years.  “A non-exhaustive list of prohibited conduct includes, “causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at… Read More

In Travers v. Collecto, Inc., 2013 WL 65452 (D.Mass. 2013), Judge O'Toole found that a voicemail message left for the debtor at a phone number/residence with which he was no longer associated stated a claim under the FDCPA. EOS does not challenge that the automated messages where communications about a debt made to a third party. Rather, EOS asks this Court to… Read More