FDCPA (Fed & State)

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 LEXIS 5210, at *21-24 (Aug. 23, 2022), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision reversed summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the debt collector.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

In Richmond v. Medicredit, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-00068-KDB-DSC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130092, at *8 (W.D.N.C. July 22, 2022), Judge Bell denied an FDCPA defendant's summary judgment motion. The Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Medicredit reported Richmond's debts as disputed to the credit reporting agencies ("CRAs"). The FDCPA protects consumers from certain… Read More

In Tukin v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC, Judge Wood found no Article III standing for a Hunstein claim (of sharing a consumer's data with a vendor) where the sharing was done by way of encrypted data transfer. First, of note, Judge Wood found no "glassine window" violation for use of an "Intelligent Mail Code" on the dunning letter's envelope. Count III alleges that… Read More

On July 15, the DFPI issued proposed regulations on the scope of  debt collection licensure required by the DCLA.  The text of the proposed regulations can be found  here:  PRO-05-21-Text-DCLA-Invitation-for-Comments.-7.14.22 There are a number of significant proposed regulations for licensees, applications, or potential licensees. First, the DFPI's proposed regulations would confirm that W-2 or true employees are not required to… Read More

In Fernandez v. Progressive Mgmt. Sys., No. 3:21-cv-00841-BEN-WVG, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120329 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2022), Judge Benitez allowed a UCL claim to proceed predicated on a Rosenthal Act violation where the customer did not allege to have paid money to the defendant. Defendant, however, is incorrect that Plaintiff must have paid EACMC monies to establish UCL standing.… Read More

We previously reported on this case here:  https://www.severson.com/consumer-finance/district-court-cal-finds-no-fdcpa-claim-based-on-reporting-account-as-disputed-when-debtor-did-not-dispute-the-debt/ Now, again, in Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01692-SKO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114028, at *4-8 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2022), Magistrate Oberta again granted a Motion to Dismiss, but again gave leave to amend, on whether credit reporting constituted debt collection activity. The purposes of the FDCPA are "to eliminate… Read More

On June 29, 2022, the CFPB issued an Advisory Opinion on collection of "convenience fees".  https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-moves-to-reduce-junk-fees-charged-by-debt-collectors/  A copy of the Advisory Opinion can be found here. Severson has been following the CFPB's evolving position(s) and regulation of "convenience fees".   CFPB-2017-S&WConvenience-Fees-Bulletin; 2018-AmericanBarAssociation-Article-on-Convnience-Fees Referring to its 2017 Compliance Bulletin, the CFPB stated: For example, in 2017, the CFPB issued a compliance bulletin… Read More

In Snyder v. Finley & Co., L.P.A., No. 21-3997, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16512, at *1 (6th Cir. June 15, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit explained how, and when, a debt collector can be found liable when losing litigation on the debt itself; i.e. does the debt collector ipso facto violate the FDCPA when it loses… Read More

In Gilbert v. TrueAccord, Case No. 21-cv-485, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111328 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2022), Judge Alonso granted partial summary judgment to a debt collector on the consumer's claim that the debt collector violated her lawyers C&D demand by e-mailing on a debt after the lawyer had advised of the lawyer's representation in connection with another debt. Furthermore, the… Read More

In Palacio v. Med. Fin. Sols., No. 21 CV 1288, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105459, at *11-15 (N.D. Ill. June 14, 2022), Judge Shah dismissed an FDCPA claim because the debt was not in default at the time of the assignment. An entity can act as both a creditor and a debt collector, but for the purposes of a particular… Read More

In Jackin v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00234-SMJ, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104273, at *5-6 (E.D. Wash. June 10, 2022), Judge Mendoza adopted the Hunstein analysis in determining whether debt collectors can share consumer debt-related information with commercial mail vendors. Upon review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b)… Read More

In Melcher v. Titlemax of Tex., Inc., No. 3:21-cv-46, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95414, at *11-13 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2022), Judge Brown denied a motion to dismiss under the FDCPA filed by a repossession referral agency. MVTrac argues that despite the plaintiffs' allegations, it is neither a debt collector nor a skip-tracing company. Dkt. 29 at 7. Though there… Read More

In Castorina v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:21-cv-02004 WBS KJN, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83039, at *13-14 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2022), Judge Shubb dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim under Rule 9(b). The heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to claims under the Rosenthal Act when premised on allegations of fraud, and here plaintiff's… Read More