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 collection of an on-line 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") stating… 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 Gutierrez v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., No. CV 18-9890 DSF (RAOx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18553 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019), Judge Fischer said that a debt collector does not bear exposure to a private FDCPA litigant when the debt collector acts pursuant to a consent decree with the CFPB. The most persuasive argument is that because a consent decree… Read More
In Izett v. Crown Asset Management, LLC., 2018 WL 6592442, at *4–5 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Chen refused to strike an affirmative defense related to an FDCPA allegation that a CCP 98 declaration in the underlying state court debt collection action allegedly was false. Defendants' seventeenth affirmative defense asserts: “A debt collector does not make misrepresentations in violation of [the FDCPA]… Read More
In Solberg v. Victim Services, Inc, dba Corrective Solutions, 2018 WL 6567072 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Chhabria certified an FDCPA class, but declined to award injunctive relief under the UCL because the putative class was unlikely to be the subject of further collection activity. The plaintiffs also seek restitutionary and injunctive relief under the UCL. As an initial matter, the plaintiffs… Read More
In Alarcon v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., 2018 WL 6266558, at *4 (S.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Burns granted summary judgment under the FDCPA in favor of a debt collector who collected, by non-judicial means, on a debt that previously had been adjudicated in favor of the debtor. The question presented in this case is whether that ruling in favor of Alarcon in… Read More
In Ocampo v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, Case No. 16-CV-9388, 2018 WL 6198464 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 28, 2018), Judge Dow found a class representative to be improper. But, in the class certification analysis, Judge Dow found that the type of debt involved did not involve individual inquiries sufficient to defeat class certification. With respect to the first argument, even though some… Read More
In Jones v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No. 18-CV-1860-BAS-RBB, 2018 WL 6062414 (S.D. Cal. November 20, 2018), the District Court dismissed an FDCPA claim brought against a debt collector arising out of a letter collecting on a time-barred debt. The Court concludes that, in the context of this case, the “will not sue” language could not plausibly mislead the least… Read More
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 N.L., an infant by his mother and natural guardian Sandra Lemos v. Credit One Bank, N.A., et.al., (No. 2:17-CV-01512-JAM-DB), 2018 WL 5880796 (E.D. Cal. November 8, 2018), Judge Mendez denied Summary Judgment to a caller under the TCPA and Rosenthal Act. The facts were as follows: A customer of Credit One, D.V., provided a phone number ending in -9847… Read More
