Distinguishing some recent cases, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York clarified that a debt collector who discloses the current amount due in an initial communication has fewer obligations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act than a debt collector that provides the amount due as of a future date.
Generally,
In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a consumer’s motion for summary judgment of her claims arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The case is Estate of Wilfred C. Clements v. Apex Asset Management, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-10843-JBS-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2019).
Defendant
Last week, a Ninth Circuit panel held that plaintiffs in five related cases lacked standing to pursue their FCRA claims. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the allegation that a credit report contained misleading information, absent any indication that a consumer tried to engage in or was imminently planning to engage in any transactions for
The Northern District of Illinois recently held that, under the facts of this particular case, the “bona fide error” defense is a question of fact for a jury to decide and could not be decided on summary judgment.
Ferris v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc. involves a Fair Debt Collection P
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) lawsuit over disclosure of the amount of debt owed.
Plaintiff Yuri Kolbasyuk sued debt collector Capital Management Services, LP (“CMS”) over a dunning letter that CMS sent him. CMS had been hired
Vanessa Smith was involved in a traffic accident in Arkansas and received a citation. In connection with the accident, Nationwide Mutual Insurance and Investments obtained a default judgment against Smith. The insurer then assigned the judgment to The McHughes Law Firm, LLC for collection. Smith subsequently entered into a payment plan with McHughes
A new Florida class action alleges that a car dealership misrepresented that it would make a “soft” credit inquiry, or pull, rather than a “hard” pull – and then made a hard pull. While the lawsuit alleges a straight-up misrepresentation causing harm to the consumer’s credit standing, the lawsuit illustrates the importance of accuracy in
On March 19, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of a defendant debt collector because the plaintiff failed to submit extrinsic evidence showing an unsophisticated consumer would find the letter at issue to be misleading, false, or deceptive.
In Lemke v. Escallate, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-5234, 2019
On March 11, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved a settlement stipulation between the parties in the long-running Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation involving Spokeo, Inc. See Thomas Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-05306 (C.D. Cal.). The settlement brings an end to the dispute that led to the
On February 26, the Northern District of California held in Banneck v. Federal National Mortgage Association that the defendant, commonly referred to as “Fannie Mae,” was not a consumer reporting agency, or “CRA,” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, granting summary judgment in a putative nationwide class action. The lawsuit had alleged violations