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.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Florida affirmed a trial court’s holding that claims under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) cannot not be assigned. In KAC 2021-1, LLC v. Mary T. Matuskah Irrevocable Trust, the plaintiff was an assignee of a tenant who leased property from the defendant trust. The tenant failed to make her monthly payments for four months and the defendant posted an “8-Day Notice” on her front door, which stated the amount due and demanded payment of the rent or possession of the property. The tenant alleged the notice faced outward so it could be seen by anyone and was specifically seen by the FedEx driver who dropped off a package, embarrassing her.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it threatened legal action to collect debts that were still within the applicable statute of limitations.

The New Mexico Supreme Court recently confirmed consumer standing to pursue state law claims against a credit union after it pursued debt collection lawsuits against its members in the New Mexico magistrate courts. Several members filed a class action lawsuit against the credit union for the unauthorized practice of law and under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), but the trial court dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court of appeals reversed and the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the plaintiffs had standing to bring claims under both the statute prohibiting the unlicensed practice of law and the UPA.

Recently, a U.S. District Court in the District of New Mexico denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims for telemarketing calls, finding genuine questions of fact about the defendant’s direct liability, actual authority over agents making the calls, whether the system used to make the calls is an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS), and whether there is a private right of action under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4). The court granted summary judgment only on claims regarding apparent authority for the agents who called and ratification of the agents’ actions.

In Aley v. Lightfire Partners, LLC, a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York certified aa Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action for all persons whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry (DNC) but who received more than one telemarketing call from the defendant based on alleged consent given to a third-party website.

A U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri recently dismissed a lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), finding that two letters sent to the plaintiffs’ attorney did not constitute harassment or abuse under 15 U.S.C. § 1692d.

A U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently denied summary judgment in a case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), finding that the defendant failed to show it received prior express written consent for telemarketing calls.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has recently underscored the fact that a plaintiff does not automatically gain Article III standing under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) simply because they are confused by a letter.

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.