On July 22, U.S. District Judge Allyne Ross awarded summary judgment to a plaintiff who brought suit under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). The victory, however, could be Pyrrhic. Over the course of 20 months of litigation, what began as a five-count purported class action was whittled down to one individual claim that
In In re FDCPA Mailing Vendor Cases, a New York district court dismissed six FDCPA complaints after plaintiffs in each of the respective cases failed to demonstrate injury-in-fact sufficient for Article III standing in response to show cause orders . The court’s holding shows the potential impact of the TransUnion v. Ramirez decision and
In Burns v. Keybridge Med. Revenue Care, No. 2:20-cv-12732 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2021), the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector, holding that it did not violate the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing to report that the plaintiff disputed the debt at issue.
The
In Klein v. Forster & Garbus LLP, a New York district court granted the defendant debt collector’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. In its holding, the court emphasized that, pursuant to the holding in Avila
In Heinz v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, the Eighth Circuit held that the mere inclusion of boilerplate disclosure language does not transform an otherwise benign informational communication into one meant to induce payment by the debtor under the “animating purpose” test, which makes a holistic consideration of an individual communication’s purpose to determine whether
In Johnson v. Columbia Debt Recovery, a Washington district court awarded each plaintiff $30,000 in emotional distress damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), $120 in treble actual damages under the Washington Collection Agency Act (WCAA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), and $2,000 in statutory damages under the FDCPA.
In
In Glawe v. Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Boren PLC, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s entry of summary judgment for the appellees-defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. In its holding, the court emphasized the need to conduct a factual analysis in that case as
In Mikhael v. Credit Corp Solutions, Inc., the Eastern District of New York held that a letter alluding to the possibility of referring an account to an attorney for review does not constitute a threat to take imminent action that “cannot legally be taken or that was not intended to be taken” under the
In Kinnick v. Med-1 Solutions LLC, an Indiana district court granted partial summary judgment for the defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. In its holding, the court emphasized that requesting that collection communications cease before the debt collector has active accounts for collection is insufficient to sustain a claim under
In Teitelbaum v. I.C. Sys., a New York district court granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. In its holding, the court emphasized that the least sophisticated consumer standard may not be invoked to support the proposition that a collection letter is ambiguous in situations where