CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.42 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Form: 30-Day Validation Notice

In Stuppiello v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., 2018 WL 2015486, at *1–2 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a request for contact in a validation letter did not overshadow the 30-day notice. Stuppiello complains of a letter in which the Defendant-Appellee informed him that a $612.32 debt “[was] due in full.” In that… Read More

In DeCapri v. Law Offices of Shaprio Brown & Alt, LLP, 2014 WL 4699591 (E.D.Va. 2014), Judge Hudson found a debt collection law firm’s FDCPA validation non-compliant with the FDCPA. Among other violations, Judge Hudson stated: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) by failing to include “by the debt collector” or similar language in the letter's validation… Read More

In Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, A Law Corp. --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 2054640 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collector violates the FDCPA if his letter starting collection efforts states expressly that the debtor must dispute the debt in writing within 30 days or have the debt deemed valid. Camacho… Read More

In Allen v. LaSalle Bank, -- F.3d – (3d Cir. 2011), here, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926, 934-39 (9th Cir. 2007) and found inter-counsel communications are subject to the FDCPA, explaining:    As noted above, the issue here is whether § 1692f(1)… Read More

In Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 2010 WL 3238969 (N.D.Cal.), Judge Fogel held that, under Iqbal and Twombly, an FDCPA plaintiff failed to state a claim for lack of meaningful attorney involvement or for violating the Camacho  standard for debt validation warnings.  As to the former, Judge Fogel explained,   Plaintiff contends that her allegations that (1) Defendants sent the… Read More

In Ellis v. Solomon and Solomon, P.C., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 104570 (2d Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that “service of process during the validation period must, at a minimum, be preceded or accompanied by notice to the consumer clarifying that the lawsuit does not in any way alter the information contained in… Read More