In Ward v. NPAS, Inc., No. 21-6189, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 7100, at *12-16 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a servicer on the basis of the FDCPA's servicer exemption. But the statute also expressly excludes "any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or… Read More
In Ramirez v. Midland Credit Mgmt., No. 22-cv-02772-VC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32517, at *1-5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023), Judge Chhabria allowed claims to proceed against a creditor for the act of calling a Plaintiff one time about a debt—and confirming on that same call that the Plaintiff was not the debtor. Capital One's motion to dismiss is denied.… Read More
In Weiner v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 2:14-cv-02597-TLN-DB, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33107, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023), Judge Nunley reconsidered Judge Englund's previous decertification order, finding that Judge Englund erred in his evaluation of whether the class representative must establish class-wide Art. III standing. In the Court's order granting Ocwen's motion for class decertification, the Court stated,… Read More
In Bassett v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., Nos. 21-2864, 22-1206, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4428, at *7 (8th Cir. Feb. 24, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed the district court's judgment for the class, finding that the Plaintiff had no Art. III Standing. The procedural background was as follows: The collectors sent Bassett (and her deceased… Read More
In Felberbaum v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, No. 22-431-cv, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3370, at *1-4 (2d Cir. Feb. 13, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FDCPA claim based on allegations that the attorney did not have meaningful involvement in reviewing the debt. As relevant here, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from making… Read More
In Moore v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, No. 1:21-cv-20481-KMM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20201, at *4-9 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2023), Judge Moore dismissed an FDCPA/FCRA class action grounded on a debt collection firm's filing a pleading that included Plaintiff's unredacted credit score. Judge Moore found no FCRA violation. Courts have routinely held that debt collectors may obtain and use a… Read More
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 December 2022, in People vs. Capital One (L.A. Sup. 22STCV36914),California's Debt Collection Task Force entered into a settlement with Capital One, obligating Capital One to pay a civil money penalty of $1.45 million, $300,000 in investigative costs, and $250,000 in restitution arising out alleged call-frequency and cease-and-desist violations. The Capital One settlement includes a specific requirement that Capital One… Read More
In Aguilar v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, No. H049860, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 22 (Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2023), the California Court of Appeal found that the Rosenthal Act incorporated the federal FDCPA’s materiality standard, and affirmed an anti-SLAPP motion filed by a debt collector. Whether the nature of the relationship between OneMain Financial and OneMain Financial Issuance Trust is… Read More
In Sanders v. Am. Coradius Int'l LLC, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-2652 (JXN)(CLW), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214456, at *10-11 (D.N.J. Nov. 29, 2022), Judge Neals confirms that 15 USC 1692f's "catch-all" provision cannot be used as a fallback for conduct that already is regulated by other provisions of the FDCPA, such as call frequency and dunning letter disclosures. Plaintiff alleges… Read More
In Ringenbach v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 4:21 CV 1400 CDP, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214026, at *2-4 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 29, 2022), Judge Perry denied a debt collector's motion to compel discovery of settlements with other co-defendants because she held that offset is not an affirmative defense under the FCRA/FDCPA. I.C. System's motions will be denied as it cites no… Read More
In Olson v. La Jolla Neurological Assocs., No. D079265, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 973, at *16-20 (Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2022), the Court of Appeal held that a medical service provider, with no affiliation to its third party billing service, was not subject to the Rosenthal Act. Thus, the legal question before us is whether a medical service provider that… Read More
In Church v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-3172 (SDW)(LDW), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201523, at *9 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2022), Judge Wigenton allowed an FDPCA class representative to limit the class to a single zip code. In this case, Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes: (1) all New Jersey residents who received a… Read More
In Concha v. Debt Recovery Res., No. CV 22-2842 PA (MARx), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201558, at *6-8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2022), Judge Anderson exercised jurisdiction over a counter-claim on the debt against an FDCPA Plaintiff because the FDCPA claim was related to the debt itself. A number of district courts in the Ninth Circuit have found that actions… Read More
That California legislature last year passed last year SB 531, which became effective July 1, 2022, imposing additional validation requirements on certain debt collectors under the Rosenthal Act. The bill was designed to do as follows: This bill would require a debt collector to which delinquent debt, as defined and specified, has been assigned to provide to the debtor, upon… Read More
In Ramirez v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 22-cv-02772-VC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191894 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2022), Judge Chhabria dismissed a Rosenthal Act case premised on the sale of the debt. Ramirez alleges that Capital One violated section 1692e of the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from using "false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with… Read More
In Collectional Pros., Inc. v. McDonough Dist. Hosp., No. 4:22-cv-04078-SLD-JEH, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187320, at *8 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2022), Judge Darrow found no federal question in an FDCPA Plaintiff's challenge to the propriety of a dunning letter that purported to follow Reg. F's model form. Though certainly a policy against abusive debt collection is important, the Court… Read More
In Young v. Midland Funding, Nos. A161843, A162784, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 843, at *33-41 (Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2022), the Court of Appeal held that the Rosenthal Act's incorporation of the FDCPA incorporates the FDCPA's strict liability standard. Young's failure to make a prima facie case that the Midland parties deliberately ignored their obligation to serve her draws into… Read More
In In re Argon Credit Llc, Nos. 16-39654, 21-00048, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 2543, at *8 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sep. 15, 2022), Judge Thorne found that a deceptive letter that causes a Plaintiff to pay sums that the Plaintiff otherwise would not owe (in this case, because the debts were void or discharged by bankrutpcy) confers standing. Plaintiffs next claim is… Read More
The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the Hunstein decision that had held that sharing information with a third party vendor might constitute a violation of the FDCPA. The decision does not make a ruling on the merits but, instead, found that the Plaintiff had failed to allege a concrete harm that would provide Article III standing. A copy… Read More
