In Espinoza v. Hunt & Henriquez, 2018 WL 6330895, at *2–3 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Magistrate Judge Cousins allowed a CCRAA claim past the pleadings stage. In her complaint, Espinoza alleges that Merrick violated § 1785.25(a). See Compl. ¶ 51. Thus, on the face of her complaint, Espinoza's CCRAA claim is not preempted by the FCRA. See U.S.C. § 1685t(b)(1)(F). Merrick, however,… Read More

In Brodsky v. HumanaDental Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6295126, at *5–6 (7th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied class certification in a TCPA Blast-Fax case. We agree with the D.C. Circuit (and the Sixth and Ninth) that, at a minimum, it is necessary to distinguish between faxes sent with permission of the recipient and those… Read More

In Alarcon v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., 2018 WL 6266558, at *4 (S.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Burns granted summary judgment under the FDCPA in favor of a debt collector who collected, by non-judicial means, on a debt that previously had been adjudicated in favor of the debtor. The question presented in this case is whether that ruling in favor of Alarcon in… Read More

In Ocampo v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, Case No. 16-CV-9388, 2018 WL 6198464 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 28, 2018), Judge Dow found a class representative to be improper.  But, in the class certification analysis, Judge Dow found that the type of debt involved did not involve individual inquiries sufficient to defeat class certification. With respect to the first argument, even though some… Read More

In Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC, v. RingCentral, Inc., No. 17-16528, 2018 WL 6068590 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished case affirmed the dismissal of a TCPA claim against an online fax service. Defendant RingCentral, Inc. (“RingCentral”) operates an online service that allows its customers to send faxes using a cover sheet… Read More

In Jones v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No. 18-CV-1860-BAS-RBB, 2018 WL 6062414 (S.D. Cal. November 20, 2018), the District Court dismissed an FDCPA claim brought against a debt collector arising out of a letter collecting on a time-barred debt. The Court concludes that, in the context of this case, the “will not sue” language could not plausibly mislead the least… Read More

In Razuki v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-1718-LAB (WVG), 2018 WL 6018361 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2018), Judge Burns showed the difficulty that an identity theft victim has in seeking to make a claim arising out of a data breach, dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.  As to the negligence claim, the Court found an absence of appreciable harm.… Read More

In Hatuey v. IC System, Inc., Civ. No. 1:16-CV-12542-DPW, 2018 WL 5982020 (D.Mass. Nov. 14, 2018), Judge Woodlock granted summary judgment to a debt collector on FDCPA and TCPA claims. On the FDCPA claim, the Court held that a cease and desist with respect to one account did not operate with respect to a second account. Although both the calls in… Read More

In Roark v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2018 WL 5921652 (D.Minn., 2018), Judge Magnuson found that no ATDS was used by a caller under post-ACA standards. Roark is incorrect that ACA Int’l has no bearing on previous FCC rulings that determined that predictive dialing systems are autodialers. The D.C. Circuit in fact rejected this very argument. “According to the [FCC],… Read More

In N.L., an infant by his mother and natural guardian Sandra Lemos v. Credit One Bank, N.A., et.al., (No. 2:17-CV-01512-JAM-DB), 2018 WL 5880796 (E.D. Cal. November 8, 2018), Judge Mendez denied Summary Judgment to a caller under the TCPA and Rosenthal Act. The facts were as follows: A customer of Credit One, D.V., provided a phone number ending in -9847… Read More