The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee recently held that a debt collector’s civil court summons requesting “reasonable attorney fees” does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  In Wilma Jones et al. v. Hospital of Morristown (Case No. 2:16cv13, 2016 LEXIS 153869 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 6, 2016)), the plaintiff argued

On December 2, Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York ruled that a class action suit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act must be arbitrated.  The class plaintiff, Alicia Zambrana, applied for and received a Best Buy-branded credit card from Household Bank N.A. (“HSBC”).  While the court could not

The Ninth Circuit recently broke from other circuit courts across the country and held that a trustee to a security agreement is not a debt collector pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The case is Vien-Phuong Thi Ho v. Recontrust Co., N.A., No. 10-56884, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18836 (9th Cir. Oct. 19,

In Igor Vayngurt v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., the Eastern District of New York ruled that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to obtain payment of a collection fee at the same time as the principal balance of the debt and requesting prompt contact in the

On October 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari of Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, an appeal from the Eleventh Circuit bringing to a head two issues that has been boiling for several years: (i) whether the filing of an accurate proof of claim for an unextinguished time-barred debt

In Marquez v. Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., et al., the plaintiffs brought a class action against the defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act arising out of the defendants’ attempt to collect on student loan debts allegedly owed by the plaintiffs.  Specifically, the defendant law firm, Weinstein, Pinson &

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has dismissed a debtor’s claim that a collection letter stating “Non-interest Charges & Fees: $0.00” was misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because an unsophisticated consumer could mistakenly believe that non-interest charges and fees might be added in the future.  The

On July 28, in a decision favorable for the collection industry, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of an action against defendant Seattle Service Bureau, Inc., a debt collector, for claims alleged under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Florida Consumer Collection

A federal judge in the Eastern District of New York ruled that a debt collection company’s internal reference number, which may have been visible through a glassine envelope, did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).

In the case, the Plaintiff, Wendy Torres Rodriguez, brought an FDCPA claim against Defendant I.C. Systems, Inc.,