Governor Gavin Newson approved SB 531 on October 4, 2021. The bill sponsored by Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) allows consumers to request verification that debt collectors collecting on delinquent debts have the authority to collect a debt and also prohibits a debt collector from making any written statements to a debtor in an attempt to collect a debt unless the… Read More
In Kozlowski v. Bank of America, 2018 WL 2096381 (E.D.Cal.), 4 (E.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court found that the Plaintiff failed to allege an FCRA claim against a furnished. Plaintiff fails, however, to adequately allege the second and third elements of a claim under § 1681s-2(b). Plaintiff does not allege in her complaint that a consumer reporting agency notified the furnisher—here, BANA—of… 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 Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 3440174 (6th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit purported to set a “baseline” of what the FDCPA requires as far as debt validation in response to a consumer dispute, but said that what validation is required depends on the circumstances. These cases… Read More
In McLaughlin v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 2883891 (3rd Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an FDCPA Plaintiff need not demand debt validation as a pre-requisite to filing an FDCPA action. PHS argues that it nonetheless cannot incur “liability as a matter of law where it has complied… Read More
In Coats v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, 2014 WL 545432 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Magistrate Brennan dismissed an FDCPA Plaintiff’s claim that the debt collector failed to properly validate the debt, finding that the information that the debt collector provided to the debtor was sufficient under the FDCPA. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to cease collection efforts upon plaintiff disputing the alleged… Read More
In Himes v. Client Services Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 24258 (D.N.H. 2014), Judge Barbadoro rejected the contention that the FDCPA requires production of sworn account ledgers during the validation process. Finally, Himes alleges under § 1692g(b) that Schiff's method of validation is insufficient because the defendants never produced a sworn accounting ledger, affidavit, or signed loan agreement to prove… Read More
In Smith v. Hunt & Henriques, 2013 WL 6141416 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Lloyd granted summary judgment to a debt collection law firm who properly validated a debt following a debtor’s demand for validation. H & H says that it is a law firm that collects outstanding financial obligations referred to it by its clients. (Dkt. 48–1, Hunt Decl. ¶ 2).… Read More
In Kayan v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 2013 WL 1010554 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Bernal found no failure to validate under the FDCPA when the Plaintiff failed to dispute the claim within the statutory 30-days. The uncontroverted evidence is that Palisades sent Plaintiff an initial demand letter on April 8, 2010. (Braun Decl., ¶ 5). Palisades did not receive any response to… Read More
In Katzakian v. Collectibles Management Resources, 2013 WL 57712 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge O'Neill found that an FDCPA Plaintiff failed to state a claim for harassment under 1692d for continuing to collect after a dispute when the debt collector complied with post-dispute debt validation under 1692g. CMR summarizes that section 1692g(b) authorizes continued debt collection unless a consumer disputes in writing during the… Read More
In Jacques v. Solomon & Solomon P.C., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 3581172 (D.Del. 2012), Judge Andrews addressed a debt collector’s obligation to validate a debt both before and after a debtor’s dispute of the dispute. As to the first three allegations, each of which relate to the validity of the debt and whether Northland had the authority to attempt… Read More
In Rodriguez v. Discovery Bank, 2012 WL 1520073 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Moskowitz explained what validation is required by a debt collector in response to a consumer dispute. Plaintiff misunderstands Defendants' duty with respect to verification of the debt. The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that “verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in… Read More
In Grant v. Unifund CCR Partners, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 379911 (C.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Snyder granted summary judgment based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. A copy of the decision is here. The Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court… Read More
In Donohue v. Nielson, --- P.3d ----, 2011 WL 1642914 (Wash.App. 2011), the Washington Court of Appeal found that successive debt collectors do not need to re-validate the debt; once is enough. The Court of Appeal explained: However, more recent cases have specifically disagreed. See Ditty v. CheckRite, Inc., 973 F.Supp. 1320, 1329 (D.Utah 1997) (“Section 1692g does not… Read More
In Sasscer v. Donnelly, 2011 WL 1522320 (M.D.Pa. 2011), Judge Munley explained what ‘validation’ is required in response to a consumer request under the FDCPA: The Third Circuit, then, has found sufficient a verification that informs the debtor of “the amounts of his debts, the services provided to produce those debts,” and “the dates on which the debts were… Read More
In Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (D. Minn. 2010) , Judge Schiltz found that a debt collector does not violate the FDCPA by reporting an account to the Credit Reporting Agencies after a debtor demands validation without first validating the debt, explaining The Court rejects Edeh’s argument that a debt collector who, before verifying a disputed debt to a consumer,… Read More
In Rudek v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C. 2009 WL 385804 (E.D.Tenn.2009), Judge Collier ruled on what constitutes proper verification of a debt in response to a debt collector’s 30 day letter under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Judge Collier held that independent validation requiring proving the merits of the obligation is not required: Defendant contends it complied with… Read More
