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
In Truckenbrodt v. CBE Grp., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-2870 (ERK) (SMG), (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2020) the court dismissed a suit brought under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) after the plaintiff conceded that he had not actually read the collections letter at issue.
The plaintiff, John Truckenbrodt (“Truckenbrodt”), owes a debt that was referred to
The Eastern District of Texas recently denied a motion to dismiss for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), holding that a garnishment action initiated eight years after the plaintiff had obtained a default judgment was not subject to the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations provision because the default judgment was obtained
In Vogel v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Court”) granted summary judgment to a debt collector on a debtor’s claim that failure to itemize debt in a collection letter was a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
Plaintiff Erin Vogel
Plaintiff Joseph Degroot defaulted on a credit card debt, which was subsequently placed with a collection agency. The agency sent the plaintiff a collection letter stating that “interest and fees are no longer being added to your account,” which the plaintiff took to mean that the account had been charged off. The debt was then