Over a strong dissent, the 11th Cir. Panel that issued the Hunstein decision affirmed the prior decision, holding "(1) that the violation of § 1692c(b) alleged in this case gives rise to a concrete injury in fact under Article III, and (2) that the debt collector’s transmittal of the consumer’s personal information to its dunning vendor constituted a communication “in connection… Read More
In Scribner v. Works & Lentz, Inc., 2016 WL 3981435, at *1 (C.A.10 (Okla.), 2016), the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit resolved the FDCPA's statutory conflict prohibiting communications which directly or indirectly disclose the debt (15 USC 1692c(b) and permissible communications to obtain location information (15 USC 1692b) In Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 668 F.3d 1174, 1177-78… Read More
In Litt v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, 2015 WL 7351781, at *7-8 (E.D.Mich. 2015), Judge Borman found that the debtor had standing, and a valid claim, to sue for 200+ "wrong number" calls to the debtor's parents, even if most of them went unanswered. The District Court found that the Plaintiff should be entitled to summary judgment on his claim for violation… Read More
In Evankavitch v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2015 WL 4174441 (3d Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a debt collector bears the burden of proving that its communications with third parties were permitted attempts to confirm or correct location information. The 3rd Circuit stated that communications with third parties to obtain location information… Read More
In Simpson v. Safeguard Properties, LLC, 2014 WL 4652336 (N.D.Ill. 2014), Judge Gotschall certified the following class under the FDCPA: Beginning in October 2012 and ending in February 2013, at the instruction of Midland, representatives of Safeguard left door hangers on Simpson's door on an approximately monthly basis. ( Id. ¶¶ 18–23.) These door hangers all contained the same text. The front… Read More
In Worsham v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., 2012 WL 5503980 (4th Cir. 2012), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a debt collection company could call a third party to obtain location information more than one time so long as its belief that the third party had information about the debtor was reasonable. Although third parties may understandably find… Read More
In Travers v. Collecto, Inc., 2013 WL 65452 (D.Mass. 2013), Judge O'Toole found that a voicemail message left for the debtor at a phone number/residence with which he was no longer associated stated a claim under the FDCPA. EOS does not challenge that the automated messages where communications about a debt made to a third party. Rather, EOS asks this Court to… Read More
In Ayala v. Creditors Specialty Service, Inc., 2012 WL 5198482 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge O’Neill found that, if true, a debt collector acted properly in its communications with the debtor’s employer. With regard to the merits of plaintiff's claims, she argues that she is entitled to summary judgment on her § 1692b(2) and Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.17 claims be-cause CSS disclosed… Read More
In Quigley v. Verizon Wireless, 2012 WL 1945784 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Chen allowed an FDCPA plaintiff leave to amend to allege a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c where the debtor claimed that he could allege that the debt collector knew where he was before the debt collector started to call third parties. Section 1692c covers communications in con-nection with… Read More
In McEndree v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 2012 WL 1640465 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge England found that liability cascaded down through the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA when a debt collector communicated about the debt with a girlfriend whom the debt collector mistakenly believed was the debtor's spouse. Judge England found liability for impermissibly violating the prohibition against discussing more than location information… Read More
Not all Plaintiffs are created equal under the FDCPA. In Bank v. Pentagroup Financial, LLC, 2009 WL 1606420 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), Judge Gleeson held that a non-debtor has no standing to pursue a claim under 15 USC 1692c (debt collector can only communicate with the debtor, his attorney, or designated representative about the debt), but did have standing to pursue a harasment claim under… Read More
