In Finley v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2015 WL 5728307 (N.D. Cal. 2015), Judge Henderson granted summary judgment to a succession of debt collection agencies based on the staleness of the claim and the lack of imputed knowledge to the latter agencies that the debtor was represented by counsel. The facts were as follows: In June of 2001, banks and… Read More
In Taufen v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., 2014 WL 668019 (D.Minn. 2014), Judge Frank held that an FDCPA plaintiff seeking to prove that a “Notice of Representation” was violated under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) must prove both that a Notice of Representation was given and that the attorney’s name was reasonably ascertainable. Even if the Court were to conclude that… Read More
In Lynch v. Nelson Watson & Associates, LLC, 2011 WL 2472588 (D.Kan. 2011), Judge Melgren held that 56 calls in a 3 month period was not too many under the FDCPA. In this case, the Court finds there is no evidence of an unacceptable pattern of calls. The record is lacking any indicia of the type of egregious conduct… Read More
In Offril v. J.C.Penney, Inc., 2009 WL 69344 (N.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Hamilton held that notice by a consumer to a creditor that it was represented by counsel did not, for purposes of the FDCPA, constitute notice to the collection agency hired by the creditor to collect the debt. Judge Hamilton explained: Although plaintiff did not allege or argue that JC Penny's actual knowledge of… Read More
