CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.37 -- Communications with the Debtor -- Validation of the Debt -- Required Notices from the Debt Collector -- Federal

In Schaired v. Monterey Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 22-cv-0736-BAS-MDD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12339, at *18-22 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023), Judge Bashant denied leave to amend to add a theory that a debt collector's subsequent communications did not say, "This communication is from a debt collector" but, instead, said, "This is an attempt to collect a debt.".  So, some… Read More

In Lenzini v. DCM Servs., LLC, No. 4:20-cv-07612-YGR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100007 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2021), Judge Gonzalez Rogers dismissed an FDCPA claim. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lenzini avers that the letter fails to satisfy the FDCPA where the letter (1) does not specifically use any modifying language to denote that Capitol One is the current creditor, and (2)… Read More

In Henson v. Nationwide Credit, No. CV 20-11402 PA (MRWx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68689 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2021), Judge Anderson dismissed an FDCPA case challenging a debt collector’s disclosures in its validation letter. In determining whether conduct violates [the FDCPA, courts within the Ninth Circuit] undertake objective analysis of the question whether the 'least sophisticated debtor would likely… Read More

In Greene v. TrueAccord, Case 3:19-cv-06651-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2020), here, Judge Chen dismissed an FDCPA case premised on the Plaintiff's claim that the defendant could not e-mail the FDCPA's validation notice. Ms. Greene contends that TA violated the FDCPA by sending her the validation notice by email – as part of the initial communication – without complying first with the… Read More

In McCray v. Deitsch & Wright, No. 8:18-cv-731-EAK-SPF, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23516 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2019), Judge Kovachevisch found that a 30-day validation letter overshadowed the debtor’s validation rights by including language stating that “Be advised if we do not receive payment promptly we will be forced to take additional action to recover the subject amounts.” After a… Read More

In Deleon v. Action Collection Agency of Boston, 2018 WL 2089343 (S.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Abrams found that a debt collector’s dunning letter identified the creditor properly when it used the creditor’s acronym. The fact that the Letter identifies the creditor by an acronym does not alter this conclusion. To comply with the FDCPA, “a creditor may use the name under… Read More

In Roth v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., 2018 WL 718402, at *4–6 (E.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Seybert denied a debt collector's motion to dismiss an FDCPA class action.  First, Judge Seybert held that the Plaintiff's bankruptcy did not deprive her of standing to sue. Here, after receiving the Letter, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy but did not initially disclose her FDCPA claim… Read More

In Huffington v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C., 2017 WL 6626317, at *4 (D.Or., 2017), Judge Acosta granted summary judgment to a debt collection law firm who had changed its name during the course of collecting on a particular debt. Viewing the instant facts through the eyes of the least sophisticated debtor, Heffington's argument here fails for three reasons. First, with… Read More

In Marquez v. Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., 2016 WL 4651403, at *4 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found a debt collection law firm's complaint deceptive. Paragraph 12 is misleading to the unsophisticated consumer both as to the proper timing to respond to the complaint and as to the manner of response. A plain reading… Read More

In Davis v. Hollins Law, 2016 WL 4174747, at *4–5 (9th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collector's identification of itself in a  voicemail message complied with the FDCPA because a least sophisticated debtor would have known who the call was from in light of prior settlement discussions between the debtor and… Read More

In Chiba v. Bayview Loan Servicing, Inc., 2016 WL 2593979, at *3-4 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Benitez granted summary judgment to a debt collector on the FDCPA Plaintiff's claim of improper debt validation. Plaintiff argues that she disputed the debt and requested validation from Bayview as early as November 14, 2012, yet she never received validation. She argues that because Bayview sent… Read More

In Janetos v. Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 2016 WL 1382174, at *4-5 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debt collection law firm failed to clearly identify the creditor in its debt collection validation letter and, accordingly, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate materiality by extrinsic evidence. It is true that for claims… Read More

In Lopez v. Mid–America Accounts Control Bureau, 2014 WL 6908140 (W.D.Mo. 2014), the District Court granted summary judgment to an FDCPA defendant whose voicemail message to the debtor did not identify the call as being from a debt collector. Plaintiff claims Defendant's single voicemail on May 10, 2013, violated the FDCPA because the caller did not identify herself as a debt collector.… Read More

In Hagler v. Credit World Services, Inc., Judge Hagler found that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by leaving a single voicemail message for the debtor. The facts of this case are few and undisputed. Defendant Credit World Services is a debt collector. On June 11, 2013, Bill Jackson, an employee of defendant, called plaintiff and spoke to him… Read More

In Forkum v. Co-Operative Adjustment Bureau, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 2119922 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Armstong granted summary judgment to an FDCPA plaintiff who alleged that the Debt Collector did not leave the truncated mini-Miranda on a voicemail message that was left in response to the Plaintiff’s own telephone call. The Court finds the following facts undisputed. Plaintiff is… Read More

In O'Connor v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., 2013 WL 2319342 (E.D.Mo. 2013), Judge Sippel denied class certification in an FDCPA/TCPA case.  Judge Sippel declined to certify an FDCPA ‘overshadowing’ class, finding that individual inquires predominated. However, a debt collector cannot use collection tactics that lead a debtor to believe he does not have any right to challenge the debt. Such a… Read More

In Felix v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, --- F.R.D. ----, 2013 WL 2319326 (W.D.N.Y. 2013), Judge McCarthy rejected a settlement class under the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act arising from allegedly inadequate and deceptive voicemail messages left on debtors’ answering machines.  The facts alleged were as follows: By Text Order dated June 15, 2011[24], I granted the parties' motions to consolidate… Read More

In Vartanian v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2013 WL 877863 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Otis Wright III addressed a litany of FCRA and FDCPA claims brought by the Kaas Law Group.  Judge Wright held that a FCRA Plaintiff need not plead that its dispute to the CRA was not frivilous; i.e. non-frivilousness is not an element of a FCRA claim. Contrary… 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 Hernandez v. Guglielmo, 2012 WL 993676 (D.Nev. 2012), Judge George followed Camacho: Neither the Ninth Circuit, nor apparently any other circuit, has directly addressed the issue of whether a debt collector violates § 1692g if the debt collector does not specifically inform the consumer that the consumer's written notification or request pursuant to subsection (a)(4) or (a)(5) initiates the… Read More