Consumer Finance

In Lynaugh v. Vincent, No. CV-19-04643-PHX-DJH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23246 (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2020), Judge Humetewa found that attorneys’ fees awarded in an underlying consumer litigation was not a debt incurred on a consensual basis and, accordingly, did not arise from a “transaction” under the FDCPA. The Court will first examine Defendants' contention that the attorneys' fees judgment… Read More

In Marshall v. Robins Fin. Credit Union, No. 5:19-CV-260 (MTT), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22274 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2020), Judge Treadwell found against an FCRA Plaintiff in a ‘scheduled monthly payment’ claim. Robins argues that it did not furnish an inaccurate tradeline because the monthly payment amount of $524.00 is an accurate "historical term" for an account that it… Read More

In Ewing v. Pollard, No. 19-CV-855-CAB-BGS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22659 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2020), Judge Bencivengo dismissed a TCPA case due to calls being manually dialed. This section of the TCPA prohibits "any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing… Read More

In Beal v. Outfield Brew House, No. 2:18-cv-4028-MDH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22487 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 10, 2020), Judge Harpol granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant, rejecting the 9th Cir.’s decision in Marks.   Plaintiff urges the Court to follow the Ninth Circuit's opinion, which found the statutory definition of an ATDS ambiguous and interpreted an ATDS to include devices… Read More

In Hoagland v. Axos Bank, No. 19-cv-00750-BAS-JLB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20543, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2020), Judge Bashant declined to stay a TCPA case while the FCC considers what an ATDS is. Defendant argues the case should be stayed while the FCC considers promulgating regulations further defining an ATDS and determining the proper approach to calls made… Read More

In Warciak v. Subway Rests., Inc., No. 19-1577, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3487 (7th Cir. Feb. 5, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said that Subway was not responsible under the TCPA for contractually participating in T-Mobile’s text message campaign advertising “T-Mobile Tuesdays”. After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that Warciak's complaint failed… Read More

In Robertson v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., No. 1:19-cv-00749-DAD-SKO, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15768 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2020), Judge Drozd dismissed an FDCPA overshadowing claim. AllianceOne contends the validation statement in its notice is not overshadowed or contradicted by other messages appearing in the notice. AllianceOne also argues that the least sophisticated debtor would not construe the notice to have demanded… Read More

In Poghosyan v. First Fin. Asset Mgmt., No. 1:19-cv-01205-DAD-SAB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14137 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020), Judge Drozd found that a plaintiff might be able to state a claim for improper debt collection under the CLRA. Although the California Supreme Court has not yet addressed whether the CLRA applies to certain types of financial transactions such as… Read More

In Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, (No. 18-14499), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit got it wrong in Marks. After they each received over a dozen unsolicited phone calls, some about repaying a debt, others about buying vacation properties, Melanie Glasser and Tabitha Evans sued the… Read More

In Preston v. Midland Credit Mgmt., No. 18-3119, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a ‘benign language’ exception to section 1692f(8), finding that an envelope’s label “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” potentially violated the FDCPA. Following his receipt of the letter, Mr. Preston filed this action in which he… Read More