In a recently issued opinion, a federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin found that a debt collector’s use of Seventh Circuit-approved interest and fees safe harbor language in a collection letter could constitute a false and misleading representation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where the plaintiff alleged that
Addressing claims based on parsing language in a collection letter, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal under Rule 12’s plausibility standard of claims asserted under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, finding the alleged representations were not misleading as a matter of law.
In Klein v. Credico Inc., the debtor alleged that
In a move that some consumer advocates worry will erode the notoriously stringent requirements of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California state legislature’s Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held a hearing this week where it advanced five different bills that amend and potentially weaken the statute. The bills advanced include the following:
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently relied on an Eleventh Circuit prohibition against “shotgun pleadings” to dismiss with prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s claims. In Dressler v. United States Department of Education, plaintiff Sandra Dressler brought a ten-count complaint against nine defendants. She alleged violations of the Fair Credit
A federal court in Wisconsin recently granted a motion for attorneys’ fees in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case based on the defendant’s “aggressive litigation tactics.” The case is Michael J. Broome v. Kohn Law Firm, S.C., et al.
Consumer plaintiff Michael Broome claimed the defendants violated the FDCPA by filing a debt-collection lawsuit
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania concluded that an admitted professional litigant stated a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when he received the defendant’s telemarketing calls on his cell phone. The determinative factor was lack of allegations and evidence that the plaintiff used the phone for the sole purpose of bringing TCPA lawsuits. A
Distinguishing some recent cases, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York clarified that a debt collector who discloses the current amount due in an initial communication has fewer obligations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act than a debt collector that provides the amount due as of a future date.
Generally,
The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled against a debt collector in LTD Financial Services, L.P. v. Collins, affirming the lower court’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict. Specifically, the Court ruled that the plaintiff was not required to prove intent as part of his affirmative claim and LTD Financial Services did
In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a consumer’s motion for summary judgment of her claims arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The case is Estate of Wilfred C. Clements v. Apex Asset Management, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-10843-JBS-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2019).
Defendant
The Northern District of Illinois recently held that, under the facts of this particular case, the “bona fide error” defense is a question of fact for a jury to decide and could not be decided on summary judgment.
Ferris v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc. involves a Fair Debt Collection P