On December 4, Judge William M. Conley, in the Western District of Wisconsin, granted a defendant debt collector’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Court determined that while the plaintiff Mikayla Fellenz has standing to sue under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), her claim that the identification of the creditor was confusing and
In Riccio v. Client Services, Inc., the District Court of New Jersey dismissed a class action lawsuit finding that a failure to assure a consumer that statements in a letter would not change in the future was not materially misleading under the least sophisticated debtor test.
On February 13, 2020, Joanne Riccio received a
Plaintiffs John Slomanski and Margaret Brusewitz brought an FDCPA class action, Slomanski and Brusewitz v. Alliance Collection Agencies, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that debt collection letters sent to them and other class members were misleading and violated §1692e of the FDCPA. They alleged that the letters were misleading because they listed
In Gould v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., No. 18-C-1282 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 10, 2020), the Plaintiff’s counsel sought $57,073.37 in attorneys’ fees after accepting an offer of judgment as to claims under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Finding that counsel had achieved only limited success, the Court reduced the fees requested by fifty
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, deciding to take up the issue of Plaintiff’s standing sua sponte, recently remanded the case of Adams v. Skagit Bonded Collectors, LLC d/b/a SB&C Ltd. back to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. This case involved an FDCPA complaint
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Urbina v. National Business Factors Inc. that a debt collector cannot use a “bona fide error” defense to shield itself from liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by merely: (1) requiring its creditor clients to provide accurate account information, and (2) requesting verification
In Paul v. Enhanced Recovery Company, the plaintiff received two letters from a debt collector concerning the same debt, about 40 days apart. The letters were identical, except for the dates and the amount of the settlement offers – the first contained an offer of $1,375.42, while the second offer was $1,277.17.
In addition
Reversing a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Second Circuit (“the Court”) ruled in Mizrachi v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LP that a threat of suit without further notice included in the defendant’s debt collection letter may have overshadowed notice of
Recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressing whether a debt collector violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by accurately stating that it is seeking to collect $0.00 in interest and collection fees, including when interest and collection fees
Two collection agencies agreed to new disclosure requirements when attempting to collect on time-barred debts, in a settlement agreement preliminarily approved by a United States district court judge in Texas last month. The settlement, arising out of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) class action involving efforts to collect unpaid medical debts, shows concerns