FDCPA (Fed & State)

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

In Scott v. Credit Consulting Servs., No. H049063, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5210, at *21-24 (Aug. 23, 2022), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision reversed summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the debt collector. The misleading character of a covered communication is material if it could "cause the least sophisticated debtor to suffer… Read More

In Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C., No. 21-50958, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22649, at *9 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2022), the Court of Appeals dismissed sua sponte an action where class certification had been granted because the representative lacked Article III standing.  The Court of Appeals summarized its holding as follows: On appeal, MVBA does not contest… Read More

In Paredes v. Credit Consulting Servs., No. H048092, 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4848, at *28-31 (Aug. 8, 2022), the Court of Appeal affirmed denial of an anti-Slapp motion filed against a Rosenthal Act complainant suing over alleged misrepresentations made in a debt collection complaint.  First, the Court found that the Rosenthal Act cross-complaint was not barred by the statute… Read More

In In Valdera v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 20-470-JJM-PAS, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139869, at *10-12 (D.R.I. Aug. 4, 2022), Judge McConnell denied summary judgment to an FDCPA Defendant who argued that the loan documents designated the loan for investment purposes because the Plaintiffs claimed that they lived at the property. PHH argues that the FDCPA does not protect Plaintiffs'… Read More

On July 27, the CFPB issues an extensive FAQ or "Compliance Aid" on how to comply with the new FDCPA regulations.  A Compliance Aid is This designation will provide the public with greater clarity regarding the legal status and role of these materials, as discussed below. The Bureau does not intend to use Compliance Aids to make decisions that bind… Read More