Debt collectors frequently rely on affidavits that attest to the validity of underlying debt in state court collection actions. An issue that has garnered attention is the extent to which the debt collector must possess personal knowledge of the facts contained in its supporting collection affidavits. In Janson v. Katharyn B. Davis, LLC (Case No.
Supreme Court Agrees to Review Tactic to Secure Appellate Review of Class Certification
On January 15, the United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in the matter of Baker v. Microsoft Corp. on the issue of whether plaintiffs may voluntarily dismiss their suit after class certification is denied as a procedural tactic to guarantee appellate review of an unfavorable class certification decision.
Rule 23(f) allows a
District Court Holds Leaving Message with Third Party Violates the FDCPA
Can a debt collector leave a message for a debtor with a third party who answers the debtor’s phone? In Halberstam v. Global Credit and Collection Corp., the District Court for the Eastern District of New York answered in the negative, holding that such action violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
House Passes Fairness in Class Action Litigation, Substantially Altering Class Action Practice
Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would heighten the standards for obtaining class certification by requiring extra scrutiny as to the continuity of the damages claimed by the class representative and the putative class members. Lawmakers voted 211-188 to pass H.R. 1927, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and
FTC Continues Crackdown on Illegal Debt Collection Activities
On January 7, the Federal Trade Commission announced four new enforcement actions targeting debt collectors and continuing the FTC’s nationwide crackdown of illegal debt collection tactics. The cases are part of Operation Collection Protection, a coordinated federal-state enforcement initiative targeting deceptive and abusive debt collection practices. Over the past year, 130 actions have been brought
Court Declines to Dismiss FCRA Claim Based on Presence of State Law Notices in Background Check Disclosure
In Lagos v. The Leland Stanford Junior University, the plaintiff alleged the defendant’s background check disclosure violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it included notices regarding background checks required under state law. The court declined to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim at the pleading stage, finding the existence of these state law notices could
Ohio “Bans the Box” in Public Sector Employment Contexts
Last week, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed into law a bill that will bar public employers from including on job applications questions concerning an applicant’s criminal background for public sector jobs.
Earlier this month, the Ohio Senate voted overwhelmingly, on a 32-1 vote, to “ban the box” for public sector jobs. In late September, the
Dish Network Moves to Stay FCRA Class Case Pending Spokeo Ruling
Dish Network recently moved to stay a Fair Credit Reporting Act case against it in the Southern District of New York, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins could control the outcome of the case. Dish Network requested that the district court stay the class action brought by installation contractors who
EZCORP Agrees to Pay Over $10 Million to Settle Claims of Illegal Debt Collection Practices
On December 16, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a consent order with EZCORP, Inc., ordering the small-dollar lender and its wholly-owned subsidiaries to refund $7.5 million to 93,000 consumers and pay $3 million in penalties for illegal debt collection practices.
EZCORP, a financial services company headquartered in Austin, Texas, provides high-cost, short-term, unsecured loans,
New Supreme Court Arbitration Decision Foreshadows Confrontation With CFPB
The Supreme Court’s latest arbitration decision is but the latest in a long line of decisions enforcing the strong federal policy enforcing arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. In DirecTV v. Imburgia, a 6-3 decision, Justice Breyer held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws, in this instance California’s, that invalidate arbitration clauses if