The District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently awarded a defendant summary judgment because the defendant’s call records directly contradicted the plaintiff’s vague recollection of events. The Plaintiff in Young v. Medicredit Inc., No. H-17-3701, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71020 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2019), asserted claims against Defendant Medicredit Inc. (“Medicredit”)
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
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
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,
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
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) lawsuit over disclosure of the amount of debt owed.
Plaintiff Yuri Kolbasyuk sued debt collector Capital Management Services, LP (“CMS”) over a dunning letter that CMS sent him. CMS had been hired
Vanessa Smith was involved in a traffic accident in Arkansas and received a citation. In connection with the accident, Nationwide Mutual Insurance and Investments obtained a default judgment against Smith. The insurer then assigned the judgment to The McHughes Law Firm, LLC for collection. Smith subsequently entered into a payment plan with McHughes
On March 19, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of a defendant debt collector because the plaintiff failed to submit extrinsic evidence showing an unsophisticated consumer would find the letter at issue to be misleading, false, or deceptive.
In Lemke v. Escallate, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-5234, 2019