FDCPA (Fed & State)

In Neal v. Am. Educ. Servs., No. 2:18-cv-01784-KJN (PS), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66584 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2019), Magistrate Judge Newman granted summary judgment against an FDCPA Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that defendant is a debt collector because defendant "claim[s] to be in service of this [*13]  debt." (ECF No. 1-1 at 7.) However, this is not the appropriate legal standard… Read More

In Boucher v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, No. 17-C-132, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61026 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 9, 2019), Judge Griesbach denied class certification in FDCPA dunning letter case because of de minimum recovery that the putative class members would receive.  The settlement would have resulted in about $1 per class member. Still, the Seventh Circuit has never said… Read More

In Brown v. I.C. Sys., No. 16 C 9784, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45384 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2019), Judge Alonso denied a debt collector’s summary judgment motion, first finding that the call pattern created a question of fact. Defendant argues that its recordings of connected calls show that plaintiff never told defendant to stop calling; on the few occasions… Read More

In Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, the SCOTUS issued its opinion finding that a law firm engaged in non-judicial foreclosure was not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA.  We post below from the SCOTUS’ syllabus. Law firm McCarthy & Holthus LLP was hired to carry out a nonjudicial foreclosure on a Colorado home owned by petitioner Dennis Obdus- key. McCarthy sent… Read More

In Frank v. Gaos, the SCOTUS today placed further standing impediments to privacy and other purely statutory/no damages class actions, finding, following objections to the class action settlement, that the case should be remanded to determine standing under Spokeo.  The background facts were as follows: Three named plaintiffs brought class action claims against Google for alleged violations of the Stored Communications Act.… Read More

In Francisco v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 17 C 6872, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42349 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2019), Judge Lefkow held that unclean hands are not an affirmative defense to an FDCPA section 1692e(8) claim even where the debtor’s attorney allegedly timed the dispute letter to coincide with the debt collector’s bi-monthly credit reporting. Because the unclean hands defense… Read More

In Kolbasyuk v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., LP, No. 18-1260-cv, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7204 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of a debt collector as to the manner in which the collector stated the amount of the debt in its debt validation letters. Plaintiff-Appellant Yuri Kolbasyuk received a debt… Read More

In Gomes v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 18-21872-CIV, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32116 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2019), Judge Altonaga denied class certification in an FDCPA class action. Defendant asserts the damages component of the case will require examination of individualized issues. According to Defendant, Plaintiff and each class member will necessarily have the burden of proving Defendant's collection… Read More

In Barbato v. Greystone All., No. 18-1042, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5336 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit imposed vicarious FDCPA liability on a debt buyer who outsourced its debt collection activities.  The appeal is concerned whether an entity that acquires debt for the "purpose of . . . collection" but outsources the… Read More

In Sanders v. LoanCare LLC, No. 18-CV-09376, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20900, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019), Judge Otero addressed, albeit in a mortgage situation, whether the collection of an online payment fee during a 10-day grace period triggered the Rosenthal Act.  The facts were as follows: In February 2018, Plaintiff received a Notice of Service Transfer ("Notice")… Read More