Photo of Rachel Ommerman

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.

In March, a district court in the Eastern District of California followed other courts holding that an undated, model form debt validation notice does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff’s barebones allegations about purported financial, reputational, and emotional harm did not confer Article III standing.

A U.S. district court in the Eastern District of New York recently denied a motion for summary judgment filed by a credit card issuer because the plaintiff alleged identity theft and a reasonable factfinder could determine the issuer’s investigation was willfully unreasonable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

A magistrate judge in the Northern District of Georgia recently recommended granting summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case in favor of a background reporting company on the grounds that a report given only to the consumer is not a consumer report and including a valid conviction on a report does not violate the FCRA as long as its expungement is also included.

A U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California recently held that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment must clearly state that attorneys’ fees and costs are limited or waived, as Arvest Central Mortgage Company (Arvest) learned to its detriment. The plaintiff had a mortgage with Arvest, entered into a forbearance agreement, and made the payments on the property, but claimed Arvest inaccurately reported that he was late on his October 2020 payment. The plaintiff sued Arvest and nine other defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, ultimately resolving his claims against all defendants except Arvest.

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