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

On October 5, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, holding that a letter which provides notice of a change in debt ownership and requests payments be remitted to the new owner qualifies as a communication related to a debt under the Fair

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) lawsuit finding Georgia’s six-month statute of limitations renewal statute did not apply to the FDCPA.

In Edwards v. Solomon & Solomon, Edwards filed a Complaint against Solomon and Solomon (“Solomon”), a third-party collection agency in

On September 4, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned summary judgment granted to a debt collector who had sent collection documents to the wrong person, ruling that it was not entitled to the bona fide error defense because it lacked procedures governing the factual mistake.

Chiari & Ilecki (“C&I”) attempted to collect a

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit because a debt collector’s failure to use the FDCPA’s precise language in its validation notice is not a violation of the FDCPA.

In Chaperon v. Sontag & Hyman, P.C., Chaperon alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and

A recent decision out of the Eastern District of Wisconsin provides an important reminder to loan servicers that a statement in a debt collection letter could be considered misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., even if the letter is “literally correct.”

The case is Reitz v.

The plaintiff incurred a debt to a medical provider who placed the debt with a debt collector. The collection letter from the debt collector included a request for repayment of principal and interest. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because it was not