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
The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied defendant JTM Capital Management, LLC’s motion to dismiss consumer plaintiff Carolyn Holloway’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act complaint in Holloway v. JTM by ruling that JTM’s inquiry into Holloway’s consumer credit report qualifies as an attempt to collect a debt because JTM sought information for
In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a consumer’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector regarding claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is Encarnacion v. Financial Corporation of America, No. 2:17-cv-00566-SPC-UAM (M.D. Fla.
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.