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 Young v. Northland Group, 2018 WL 306023, at *1–2 (E.D.Mo., 2018), Judge Autrey allowed an FDCPA claim to proceed based on the consumer's allegation that the debt collector did not immediately cease communications about the debt after the debtor notified the debt collector of representation by bankruptcy counsel. “The purpose of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices… Read More
In Robin v. Miller and Steeno, P.C., 2014 WL 3734318 (E.D.Mo. 2014), Judge Limbaugh treated an oral Notice of Representation given during a collection call like a Miranda warning, requiring the collector to terminate the call once the Notice was given. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a… 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 Hadsell v. CACH, LLC, 2014 WL 497433 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Lorenz, within the context of a motion for reconsideration, granted partial summary judgment and denied partial summary judgment to an FDCPA defendant alleged to have violated a Cease-and-Desist letter from the debtor and to have violated the FDCPA by praying for 10% interest in the Prayer for Relief in… Read More
In Cerrato v. Solomon & Solomon --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 6621339 (D.Conn. 2012), Judge Hall found that a debt collector violated a consumer's cease-and-desist by making 8 attempts to call the customer after the cease-and-desist, even though the customer never answered any of those calls. The Court analogized to Foti's holding that voicemail messages were 'communications' under the FDCPA, and found,… Read More
In Beard v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 2012 WL 3778880 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Mueller partially granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FDCPA harassment claim. Judge Mueller found that the call volume and pattern did not support a claim of harassment. Plaintiff later estimated that Sentry called her at least seven times per day, every day over the course of months (Id. at… Read More
In Snyder v. Daniel N. Gordon, P.C., 2012 WL 3643673 (W.D.Wash. 2012), Judge Jones found that a single non-itemized statement of the debt in the debt collector's initial communication was deceptive because it did not itemize the obligation. As far as the court is aware, the Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed the issue of whether a debt collector must provide the… Read More
In Pace v. Portfolio Recovery Services, LLC, 2012 WL 2398024, (W.D.Mo. 2012), here, Judge Sachs held that a Plaintiff who gave ambiguous testimony on mailing of a Cease and Desist letter under FDCPA was not entitled to the presumption of the mailbox rule wherein delivery is presumed. Whether plaintiff can create a jury issue over adequately having given written notification to… Read More
In Johnson v. PMAB, LLC, 2012 WL 1379843 (W.D.N.C. 2012), Judge Conrad held that only consumers, and not third parties, have standing to pursue a cease-and-desist violation under the FDCPA. The Fourth Circuit addressed more general standing to sue under the FDCPA in Rawlinson v. Law Office of William M. Rudow, LLC, No. 10–2148, 2012 WL 19666 (4th Cir.… Read More
On June 23, 2009, the FTC issued an informal staff opinion purporting to resolve a conflict between the FDCPA and the FCRA, explaining: The potential conflict arises when a consumer orders a debt collector in writing to cease communication, but at some future time submits a direct dispute about information the debt collector has provided to a CRA. The Rule… Read More
