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.
A district court in the District of Arizona granted a motion to dismiss in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case on the basis that multimedia messaging service (MMS) texts do not constitute prerecorded messages unless the audible component plays automatically upon opening.
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.
In Perrong v. Bradford et al, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an elected official, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling his residential phone using a prerecorded message and an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). He further alleged that his telephone number was registered with both the national and Pennsylvania Do Not Call registries.
Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. (PRRS), a collection company, was accused of violating the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (CFDCPA) by allegedly illegally collecting or attempting to collect on parking fines that were already paid or were incurred by another vehicle owner. PRRS was also accused of allowing its collection license to expire on July 1, 2022, not submitting a new license application until December 2022, but still continuing to collect debts in the state in the interim.
On August 8, a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming a district court’s partial dismissal judgment entered in Trim v. Reward Zone USA LLC, holding that text messages did not use prerecorded voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because they did not include audible components.
In Wiley v. American Financial Network, Inc., a district court judge in the Central District of California denied a motion for class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case, finding the defendant provided evidence suggesting the plaintiff invited the calls.
As discussed here and here, D.K. et al. v. United Behavioral Health et al. is a case that has been carefully watched in the health benefits space for its impact on what health plan administrators must include in adverse benefit determination letters. In D.K., the Tenth Circuit held health plan administrators cannot rely