On November 8, the Eastern District of New York rendered an opinion granting Credit Control Services’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Yendy Cruz’s claim. Specifically, the Court found Credit Control’s collection letter was not false or misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because Credit Control was not including either interest or fees on its
Northern District of New York: No FDCPA Violation Where Pre-Judgment Interest Not Disclosed in Collection Letters
On November 15, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled that a law firm did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it stated in its collection letter that the “amount due” was $5,794.54 but failed to indicate that this amount could increase due to interest assessed pursuant
Federal Court Finds 29 Calls in 24 Days Sufficient to State FDCPA Claim
A federal district court in Connecticut recently ruled that a debt collector’s 29 telephone calls to a debtor’s home telephone over a period of 24 days was sufficient to establish a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In denying in part the defendant debt collector’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Jeffrey
Current Balance Decision Creates Uncertainty in Eastern District of New York
On October 31, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York held that a debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to disclose whether interest and fees may accrue on an account. Specifically, the Court denied a debt collector’s summary judgment motion, stating that a collection letter
CFPB Issues Interim Final Rule Amending Time Requirement for Servicers to Send Subsequent Early Intervention Notices
On October 4, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued an interim final rule which will amend a portion of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule for Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Specifically, the interim rule will amend the amount of time mortgage servicers have under amended § 1024.39(d)(3)(iii) to “provide modified
Northern District of Illinois Says that Revocation of Consent for One is Not Revocation of Consent for All
On August 23, a federal judge in Illinois ruled that a consumer who had multiple accounts with different creditors assigned to the same collection agency did not effectively revoke consent for all accounts merely by revoking consent for one. Specifically, the Court said that when a consumer told a collection agency to stop calling him
Plaintiff’s Counsel Ordered to Pay Defendant’s Fees and Costs in Bad Faith FDCPA Action
On September 20, a United States District judge for the Northern District of California granted defendant United Recovery System’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs arising from its successful defense of a lawsuit based on alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, also known as
11th Circuit Rules That Consent Under TCPA Can Be Partially Revoked
The Eleventh Circuit ruled in Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank that a consumer can verbally revoke consent to be called on her cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system “in the morning and during the work day.” As a result, the district court improperly granted summary judgment to the bank because a jury could find
Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of $3.2M TCPA Class Action Settlement
On August 10, Massachusetts District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns granted preliminary approval of a $3.2 million class settlement agreement in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action filed against Collecto, Inc. The four named plaintiffs allege that Collecto made unauthorized telephone calls to class members’ cellular phones using an automated telephone dialing system in
Northern District of Illinois Rules for Debt Collector on Challenge to 1099-C Language
On August 9, the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to a debt collector who included 1099-C language in its collection letter. The Court held the language was not false or deceptive, and that no reasonable person could read the language otherwise.
In Moses v. LTD Financial Services I, Inc., et al., plaintiff