In Heredia v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P., No. 19-1296, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33444, at *4 (7th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held that a debt collector's reference to the possibility of issuing a 1099-C was materially misleading, at the pleadings stage. The language at the crux of this lawsuit is the part… Read More
In Cowley v. Equifax Info. Servs., No. 2:18-cv-02846-TLP-cgc, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193522 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2019, the District Court refused to allow a scheduled monthly payment issue case to proceed under the FCRA. The only evidence Plaintiff [*9] brings to defeat UCFSC's motion for summary judgment is that the industry guideline, the CRRG, suggests that when a furnisher of… Read More
In Alan v. Equifax, Inc., No. CV 19-6588-DMG (ASx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194161 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2019), the District Court found no jurisdiction over a CCRAA claim. Federal law is not essential to the CCRAA claim under Cal Civ. Code section 1785.25(a). Defendant does not argue that the FCRA is a necessary element of the Section 1785.25(a) CCRAA… Read More
In Dotson v. Ally Fin., No. 2:19-cv-2274, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193764 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2019), the District Court said that a TCPA defendant could not file a counter-claim in federal court against a TCPA Plaintiff. Nothing prevents Ally from suing Dotson in state court. A state court judgement may be used as a set-off to any judgment Dotson… Read More
In Koehler v. Waypoint Res. Grp., No. 8:18-cv-2071-T-60AAS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191438 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2019), the District Court held that a debt collector’s reporting of a cable bill to the CRAs did not trigger the FDCPA. All of Koehler's FDCPA claims are based on Waypoint's error in reporting the original creditor as "Charter Communications" rather than "Bright… Read More
In Persinger v. Sw. Credit Sys., No. 1:19-cv-00853-RLY-MJD, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188920, at *9 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 30, 2019), the Defendant was sued in a class action for accessing a consumer's credit report after the consumer's account had been discharged in bankruptcy; i.e. that the defendant had no permissible purpose in accessing the consumer report for account review purposes… Read More
In Nayab v. Capital One Bank USA, No. 17-55944, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32575, at *24-32 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that an FCRA Plaintiff met the Spokeo and Iqbal/Twombly standards for pleading a "Permissible Purpose" action under the FCRA. Nayab has pleaded facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable… Read More
In Timmons v. SunTrust Bank, No. A19A1262, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 547, at *1-6 (Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019), the Georgia Court of Appeals held that an auto finance lender was not a holder-in-due-course, but instead was subject to the FTC Holder Rule contained in the RISC. [O]n July 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs purchased a 2015 GMC Sierra from the… Read More
In Kalta v. Fleets 101, No. B292185, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1060 (Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding that the Plaintiff was a “consumer” under the CLRA. Defendant does not tell us the standard of review; does not summarize the facts, detailed ante, supporting a finding that the vehicle was purchased for… Read More
In Berroteran v. Superior Court, No. B296639, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1065 (Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019), the Court of Appeal permitted admission of prior deposition testimony from an automobile manufacturer’s employee where the manufacturer allegedly had motive and opportunity to examine their own witness in the prior case(s). Except for Wahlgren, California law is consistent with federal law. Section… Read More
