Photo of Rachel Ommerman

Rachel Ommerman

Subscribe to Rachel Ommerman's Posts

Rachel is an attorney in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Practice Group, where she represents clients in consumer financial services law, collections disputes, and commercial litigation in both the federal and state courts. She also represents creditors in bankruptcy courts throughout the U.S., primarily Motions of Relief from Stay and Objections to Confirmation, as well as handling adversary proceedings.

Last week, a district court in Nevada held that an undated, model form debt validation notice does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In Bergida v. PlusFour, Inc., the defendant sent a debt validation letter to the plaintiff that followed the model form provided by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The letter was not dated. The plaintiff claimed the letter violated FDCPA §§ 1692d, e, f, and g because she could not determine what date was “today” and “now,” which allegedly misled her about the status of the debt, confused her, made the letter seem illegitimate and suspicious, and caused her to spend time and money trying to figure out whether the debt was valid. When considering the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court applied the least sophisticated debtor standard and found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim.

In Moore v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corp., Inc., the plaintiff initiated litigation in state court alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on the defendant’s use of a letter vendor to send the plaintiff a demand. After removal, the U.S. district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found that the plaintiff failed to allege a harm sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction and remanded the case to the original Pennsylvania state court.

On June 29, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking clarifying how consumers may revoke consent to receive calls or texts under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The FCC is accepting comments on the proposed rule until July 31, 2023.

In Bemero v. Lloyd & McDaniel, PC, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to dismiss in a Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case where the Model Validation Notice (MVN) was undated, finding the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not allege a concrete injury.

The defendant…

In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case where a bank promptly corrected inaccurate mortgage payment information furnished to three national consumer reporting agencies (CRAs).

In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted FCRA claims against the bank holding…

A district court in the Northern District of California recently denied in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and California’s Rosenthal Act involving collection texts sent to a consumer.

In Ronald Cupp v. First National …

In Snyder v. LVNV Funding LLC, et al., the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against LVNV Funding LLC (LVNV) and Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC (SAS), alleging a letter from SAS offering a settlement of her debt violated sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1692g(a)(1) of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court held…

Allowable statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) have a floor of $500 and, generally speaking, determining total damages is a simple math calculation. In the class action scenario, however, this damages number can become very significant very quickly. But a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit suggests that, in some circumstances, an…