In Gould v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., No. 18-C-1282 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 10, 2020), the Plaintiff’s counsel sought $57,073.37 in attorneys’ fees after accepting an offer of judgment as to claims under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Finding that counsel had achieved only limited success, the Court reduced the fees requested by fifty
In Truckenbrodt v. CBE Grp., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-2870 (ERK) (SMG), (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2020) the court dismissed a suit brought under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) after the plaintiff conceded that he had not actually read the collections letter at issue.
The plaintiff, John Truckenbrodt (“Truckenbrodt”), owes a debt that was referred to
In Vogel v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Court”) granted summary judgment to a debt collector on a debtor’s claim that failure to itemize debt in a collection letter was a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
Plaintiff Erin Vogel
In Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, No. 18-12344 (11th Cir. Sep. 17, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit (the “Court”) found a series of errors in an order entered by the Southern District of Florida approving the settlement of a class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Significantly, the Court invalidated the
In Odom v. ECA Mktg., No. 5:20-cv-00851-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2020), the Central District of California (the “Court”) permitted a claim for willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) to go forward even though it is undisputed that the plaintiff received only a single marketing call.
The plaintiff, Ryan Odom, alleges
New Mexico’s Attorney General Hector Balderas announced on September 29 that his office has filed three lawsuits against debt collection companies. In his statement, Balderas explained that these lawsuits are part of a larger “crackdown” aimed at educating consumers and eliminating abusive debt collection practices within the state.
The lawsuits, filed against LVNV Funding,
A recent decision out of the Eastern District of Wisconsin provides an important reminder to loan servicers that a statement in a debt collection letter could be considered misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., even if the letter is “literally correct.”
The case is Reitz v.
Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) plaintiffs learned a hard lesson in procedure recently when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of their claim because they (presumably) failed to follow the notification process required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), which foreclosed their private right of action.
The case is Sprague v. Salisbury Bank
On July 31, Judge J. Michael Seabright, in the District of Hawaii, denied a Defendant debt collector’s motion for summary judgment. In doing so, the Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that it could rely on an informal email from a state agency regarding compliance advice.
Previously, DNF Associates, LLC (“DNF”) had filed a lawsuit
On June 29, 2020, the United State House of Representatives passed the Protecting Your Credit Act of 2020, H.R. 5332. The purpose of the bill is to “ensure that consumer reporting agencies are providing fair and accurate information reporting in consumer reports” by amending certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).
If the