FDCPA (Fed & State)

In Munekiyo v. Capital One Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 6057830 (C.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Snyder addressed Capital One’s use of a debt collection agency to service defaulted accounts, and potential deception in correspondence from Capital One that resulted in the consumer dealing with the third party debt collector.  Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Plaintiff maintained a credit card account… Read More

In Vasquez v. State Recovery Systems, Inc., 2011 WL 6012326 (E.D. Cal. 2011), Judge Burrell found Plaintiff’s recitation of the legal requirements of the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA insufficient to state a claim under Iqbal/Twombly.    Plaintiff's FAC essentially comprises the following allegations: “Defendant is a debt collector as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6) and Cal. Civ.Code… Read More

In Mazzaferro v. Stanaland, 2011 WL 5444323 (N.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Illston held that an attorney fee award in an underlying case that was reduced to judgment and abstract was not a ‘consumer debt’ under the FDCPA because the judgment did not arise out of a ‘consensual’ transaction.  Judge Illston explained:   Defendant contends that plaintiffs have failed to state a… Read More

In Aho v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc., --- F.R.D. ----, 2011 WL 5401799 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Sabraw certified an NOI class under the UCL and ASFA for allegedly faulty post-repossession letters ("NOIs") pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2), but refused to do so under the Rosenthal Act.  Judge Sabraw found the ‘damages’ sought under the Rosenthal Act were not incidental to the… Read More

In Moscona v. California Business Bureau, Inc., 2011 WL 5085522 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Benitez granted summary judgment in favor of a debtor and against a debt collection agency on a number claims arising out of collection and reporting on a debt. Judge Benitez held that the debt collector’s reporting of the Account to the credit reporting agencies before it verified… Read More

In Daniel v. West Asset Management, Inc., 2011 WL 5142980 (E.D.Mich. 2011), Judge Cleland granted summary judgment against a debtor on the debtor’s FDCPA harassment claim:    Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue for trial because “Plaintiff has offered no indication on the number of calls, the time of calls, the content of any conversations… Read More

In Coleman v. Credit Management, here, Judge Lynn held that section 1692c of the FDCPA – related to communications with consumers at inconvenient times or places – does not apply to non-consumers.   Even though §1692d – related to harassing any person -- does apply to non-consumers, the section is not violated where the debt collector only makes fourteen phone calls in… Read More

In Lopez v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2011 WL 4964886 (C.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Gutierrez granted a debt collector's Motion to Dismiss a telephonic harassment case, with leave to amend, holding: There are no facts alleged as to the content of the calls. And the confusing statement that Defendant made “up to three [ ] collection calls five [ ] times per week”… Read More

In Monahan v. NRA Group, LLC (D.Conn. 2011), here, Judge Hall held that debt collection, after all, by its nature inflicts some inconvenience and embarrassment and the FDCPA was not designed to eliminate all of it.      The district court held that section 1692d is meant to protect debtors from oppressive and outrageous conduct, but not from every negative… Read More

Contrasting with Judge Nguyen's recent decision in Greenberg v. Hunt and Henriques, 2011 WL 4639833 (C.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Thurston in Moriarity v. Henriques, 2011 WL 4769270 (E.D.Cal. 2011) allowed an in pro per plaintiff to proceed against a debt collection law firm under the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act for filing and proceeding to default judgment in a state court collection… Read More

In Dudley v. Powell Law Office, P.C., 2011 WL 4544632 (W.D.Wash. 2011), Judge Leighton expanded on the Arteaga holding that one-call-per-day is not too much, saying that the FDCPA “does not even prevent a collector from calling multiple times in a week, or even in a day.”    Crystal Dudley owes a debt and acknowledges that the debt is owed.… Read More

In Greenberg v. Hunt and Henriques, 2011 WL 4639833 (C.D.Cal. 2011) Judge Nguyen found a consumer collaterally estopped from pursuing an FDCPA case in federal court based on the improper filing and prosecution to judgment of a state court collection action.  The district court found that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped to challenge the state court action, and that the… Read More

In Corby v. American Exp. Co., 2011 WL 4625719 (C.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Wright found that, under Nelson, a consumer can only recover under FCRA for a section 1681s-2(b) claim – meaning, the consumer must first dispute the claim with the credit reporting agency.  Judge Wright as a corollary therefore held that a consumer can not recover for wrongful or inaccurate… Read More

In Vester v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C., 2011 WL 4591948 (D.Colo. 2011), Judge Krieger was asked to reconsider an FDCPA ruling adverse to the consumer on the basis that the 9th Circuit’s decision in McCullough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.2011) and its holding regarding the evidentiary value of generic credit card agreements to prove-up a… Read More

In Shapiro v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2011 WL 4500114 (C.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Wright discussed the pleading standards necessary to state a claim against a debt collector’s principal/owner liable for the actions of the business:   With respect to Hopp, the parties dispute as to whether Hopp can be held liable pursuant to the FDCPA as PCC's owner. District courts have… Read More

In Quinones v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 2011 WL 4498985 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Battaglia addressed a rather complicated factual pattern relating to whether a debt collector improperly collected a debt from the father or the son.  In addressing the debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, Judge Battaglia overruled Plaintiff’s objections to the debt collector’s custodian of records declaration:    Plaintiffs… Read More

In Seeley v. Nevada Ass'n Services, Inc., 2011 WL 4470840 (D.Nev. 2011), Judge Navarro held that the threat of a homeowners association lien being placed before the expiration of the 30-day validation expired overshadowed the consumer’s rights, constituting an FDCPA violation.  Judge Navarro explained:    Nevertheless, here, both the form and the substance of the letter overshadowed the required notice.… Read More

In Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 4430844 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that a debt collector’s dunning letters violated the FDCPA, and that recovery could be awarded under both the Rosenthal Act and the FDCPA.    In 2002, Arrow purchased a portfolio of debts owed to health… Read More

In Zimmerman v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. --- F.R.D. ----, 2011 WL 4349355 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), Judge Gardephe found a debt collector’s ‘Pre-suit ackage” to violate the FDCPA because it simulated documents authorized by a Court, and certified a class action. The “Pre-Suit Package” was described as follows:   Enclosed please find a copy of the lawsuit our local counsel in… Read More

In Marshall v. Bonded Adjustment Co., 2011 WL 3882284 (E.D.Wash. 2011), Judge Peterson granted a protective order against discovery targeted towards an FDCPA defendant’s net worth in an FDCPA class action – until a class was actually certified.   Bonded argues that the court should issue a protective order preventing discovery of Bonded's net worth information unless and until a… Read More