Last week a district court judge in the Northern District of Illinois granted a collection agency’s motion to dismiss, ruling that a collection letter, even coupled with a voicemail, did not present a sense of urgency sufficient to confuse an unsophisticated consumer in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
At
A district court in Texas, in Young v. ProCollect, Inc. (N.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2019), granted summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector, ProCollect, Inc., where claims were asserted by the plaintiff, Ronnie Young, on behalf of himself and a putative class, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
In the complaint,
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a class action suit against a collection agency based on alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In its opinion, which can be found here, the Court held that a single collection letter, which included two telephone numbers and an
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently ruled that a plaintiff has statutory standing to sue under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, despite the fact that the debt collector was attempting to collect a debt from the plaintiff’s son, not from the plaintiff himself.
The plaintiff’s name is “Christopher O.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a consumer’s appeal from the Third Circuit’s ruling that his claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act were time-barred despite being brought within one year of discovering the violation. The circuits have been split on whether the one-year statute of limitations under the FDCPA begins to run when
On February 22, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential ruling affirming a district court’s finding that Crown Asset Management LLC is a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In doing so, the Third Circuit interpreted the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Henson v. Santander, Consumer USA Inc., 137
A federal court in Pennsylvania recently awarded summary judgment in favor of a consumer who brought a suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against a collection agency. The plaintiff alleged, and the Court agreed, that the collection letter misleadingly indicated that a dispute could be made by phone, despite the letter’s inclusion of
On January 22, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona found that a consumer had standing to pursue a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is Driesen v. RSI Enterprises Inc., No. 3:18-cv-08140-PCT-DWL (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2019).
The plaintiff, Kimberly Driesen, received phone
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas recently granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector, holding that letters sent with the same client account number for two different debts incurred with the same underlying creditor was not false, deceptive, or misleading or otherwise in violation of the Fair Debt
In a recent ruling, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s $10 million disgorgement order assessed jointly and severally not only against collection agencies but also their individual owners. The Second Circuit’s decision can be found here.
This case involved thirteen debt collection companies that operated pursuant to the same strategy: