On March 30, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case in favor of a debt collector, finding that the use of the Miller safe harbor language in its collection letter did not violate the FDCPA. In granting the debt collector’s motion, the Court
In a recent ruling, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs stated a viable claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by alleging that a collection letter which included the safe harbor language set forth in Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, LLC, 214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir.
On March 19, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted summary judgment to a debt collector who was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, by including language in a form letter that referred to the tax implications of accepting a settlement
The District of Nevada recently applied the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International v. FCC and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on plaintiff’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim. Specifically, the Court held in Marshall v. The CBE Group, Inc. that CBE’s phone system does not qualify as an automatic telephone dialing
We previously reported on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Oliva v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC, 864 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2017). In Oliva, the sharply-divided Seventh Circuit held that the debt collector was liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act even though the collector followed a longstanding
We are pleased to announce that Troutman Sanders attorneys Ethan Ostroff and Ashley Taylor will be presenting during the Credit and Collection News Annual Conference at the Ritz- Carlton in Lake Tahoe, California. Ethan will be providing a “TCPA Update” on April 11 at 3:00 p.m., directly followed by Ashley speaking at 4:00 p.m. on
On March 22, 2018, the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment to a collection agency in a “current account balance” case. Specifically, the Court found no violation of the FDCPA because in its letter the debt collector did not have to notify the consumer that her balance may increase and the creditor was
On March 29, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a long-awaited opinion in what is commonly called a “reverse-Avila” or “current account balance” case, holding that it is not a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) for a debt collector to state a consumer’s
On February 16, a judge in the Eastern District of New York denied a defendant collection law firm’s motion to dismiss, finding that its collection letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it did not clearly set out that interest and fees may accrue on the “current balance.”
In addition to the hotly litigated mandatory disclosure of the “amount of the debt,” the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also requires a seemingly straightforward statement of “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed” as set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2). However, even this requirement has given rise to a