Addressing claims based on parsing language in a collection letter, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal under Rule 12’s plausibility standard of claims asserted under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, finding the alleged representations were not misleading as a matter of law.
In Klein v. Credico Inc., the debtor alleged that
In a move that some consumer advocates worry will erode the notoriously stringent requirements of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California state legislature’s Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held a hearing this week where it advanced five different bills that amend and potentially weaken the statute. The bills advanced include the following:
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently relied on an Eleventh Circuit prohibition against “shotgun pleadings” to dismiss with prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s claims. In Dressler v. United States Department of Education, plaintiff Sandra Dressler brought a ten-count complaint against nine defendants. She alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Earlier this week, the Fourth Circuit struck down a provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) that exempted government-backed debts from the statute’s prohibition on automated calls to cellular telephones. According to the Court in American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al v. FCC, the debt-collection exemption does not pass strict scrutiny
A federal court in Wisconsin recently granted a motion for attorneys’ fees in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case based on the defendant’s “aggressive litigation tactics.” The case is Michael J. Broome v. Kohn Law Firm, S.C., et al.
Consumer plaintiff Michael Broome claimed the defendants violated the FDCPA by filing a debt-collection lawsuit
Background
In Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania concluded that an admitted professional litigant stated a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when he received the defendant’s telemarketing calls on his cell phone. The determinative factor was lack of allegations and evidence that the plaintiff used the phone for the sole purpose of bringing TCPA lawsuits. A
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