Aspiring plaintiffs continue to litigate the issue of an attorney’s role in sending debt collection letters. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a debt collector may not use false or misleading representations in the collection of a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). In Bencomo v. Forster & Garbus LLP, et al., No.
The Eastern District of New York recently granted a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case because the collection letter clearly identified the creditor to whom the debt was owed and would not mislead even the least sophisticated consumer. In doing so, the Court critiqued the “lawyer’s case”
In a recent statement from the Federal Communications Commission, Chairman Ajit Pai proposed the adoption of new rules aimed at extending the anti-spoofing prohibitions in last year’s Ray Baum’s Act to international callers and texters. The provisions in last year’s Ray Baum’s Act extended the scope of the Truth in Caller ID Act, which the
On June 25, a district court judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court held that requiring the plaintiff, Iris Calogero, to repay funds arising from the overpayment of grant monies did not constitute a debt under the Fair
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reiterated that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was not intended to penalize a company that made an honest mistake that resulted in no harm to the borrower.
In Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc., No. 17-3162, Slip Op. (7th Cir. June 4,
Last fall, Troutman Sanders reported that the Federal Communications Commission released its final report and order creating a reassigned numbers database to block robocalls. The FCC has now issued formalized policies to allow carriers to block calls by default using “reasonable analytics.”
The final version of the ruling is largely unchanged from the proposed version.
It is well settled that the purpose of filing a bankruptcy petition is to “give[] the honest but unfortunate debtor . . . a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of pre-existing debt.” Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234,
On May 30, a district court judge in the Middle District of Georgia granted a debt collector’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that the debt collector’s “submit a dispute” statement did not overshadow the letter’s 15 U.S.C. § 1692g notice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
As required by
In Tyler v. Mirand Response Systems, Inc., the Southern District of Texas recently granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector in a claim brought under § 1692d(5) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiff Nina Tyler had become indebted to her bank, and the debt was transferred to Mirand Response Systems, Inc.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held, for a second time, that a consumer need not receive notice of a potential violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in order for the statute of limitations to start; rather, the focus remains on when the injury occurs. A copy of the