On April 18, the United States Supreme Court heard long-awaited oral arguments in a case that addresses the fundamental issue of the definition of a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Supreme Court’s decision will resolve an existing Circuit split on whether an entity that purchases defaulted debts and then attempts
On April 17, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed sua sponte a suit against a collection agency alleging that the debt collector failed to properly update the plaintiff consumer’s credit report, thereby violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a putative Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action against defendant debt collector, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. (“RMCB”), over allegedly violative letters dealing with unpaid E-ZPass tolls. A copy of the opinion can be found here.
As background, plaintiff Thomas E.
In Hinderstein v. Advanced Call Ctr. Techs., No. 15-100017 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017), a case alleging violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Court found that a relatively high call
Plaintiff Yvette Palmer filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case against defendant debt collector, Enhanced Recovery Company (“ERC”), for ERC’s alleged concealment of its identity as a debt collector while attempting to collect a debt and to obtain information to collect debt. ERC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently dismissed all of a plaintiff’s claims in the putative class action Matthew Stuppiello v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. The Court held that a validation notice does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by including a request for payment “and explain[ing]
On January 9, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) entered a Consent Order against Works & Lentz, Inc., Works & Lentz of Tulsa, Inc., two medical debt collection law firms, and their president, Harry A. Lentz, Jr., for the defendants’ violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Furnisher Rule (Regulation
On January 17, 2017, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, an appeal from the Eleventh Circuit bringing to a head two issues that had been boiling for several years: (i) whether the filing of an accurate proof of claim for an unextinguished time-barred
On January 13, 2017, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a case presenting the question whether a financing company that purchases delinquent debts and begins collecting on those debts can be held liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Court will review the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Henson et al.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently held in Samuel Chisholm v. AFNI, Inc. that a debt collector “could not reasonably be found to violate” the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by calling a consumer 18 times on his cell phone over the course of 13 days. All calls were