This article was originally published on the Maurice Wutscher blog and is republished here with permission. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the discovery rule applies equally regardless of the nature of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violation alleged by a plaintiff. Therefore, according to the Ninth Circuit, […]
A federal Judge from the Eastern District of Tennessee has dramatically reduced a consumer attorney’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) cases involving an accepted Offer of Judgment. The cases were LaPointe v. Midland Funding, LLC (Case Nos. 2:15-CV-171 and 2:15-CV-172, United States District Court, […]
Eighteen months after the filing of a putative FDCPA class action that arose out of a $131 balance on a Verizon account a New York Federal Judge has granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the lawsuit. According to the Judge – again – this is a clear case of entrapment.
The second annual First Party Summit will take place October 17-19, 2016, at the Eaglewood Resort & Spa just outside Chicago. Last year the inaugural event sold out. Preview the agenda now, and sign up so you don’t miss the opportunity.
insideARM maintains a free FDCPA resources page to provide the ARM community a destination for timely and topical information on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). This page is generously supported by TransUnion. See the page here or find it in our main navigation bar from any page on insideARM. The cornerstone of the page is […]
The Seventh Circuit’s ruling stems from three consumers that brought suit against three debt collection agencies for violating the FDCPA’s broad prohibition on false, deceptive or misleading representations threatening to take action that collectors do not intend to actually take. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). In each case, the agency had previously filed suit against the consumer in state court. The consumers argued in their lawsuits, however, that the suits against them violated the FDCPA because the agencies never had the intention of proceeding to trial; rather, the consumers alleged that the suits were brought solely to obtain a default judgment or settlement. The proof, the consumers argued, was the fact that each debt collector later moved for voluntary dismissal of their lawsuits.
The Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robins was expected to provide clarity to debt industry defendants facing FDCPA and related consumer lawsuits where the Plaintiffs’ allege no actual harm. Unfortunately, the case did little to specify exactly what type of “concrete” harm a consumer must allege to pursue a claim, but did provide some excellent language that can be used to refute consumer lawsuits where no actual harm is or could be alleged.
In an opinion issued yesterday in two consolidated cases, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that “a particular subset of creditors—debt collectors”—may be liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for bankruptcy Proof of Claim filings on debt they know to be time-barred. Both cases were appeals from decisions from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Is the next step in debt collection rulemaking drawing near? Last week the Bureau issued notice of yet another extension, however this one is shorter than those previously announced.
Yesterday the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in Paula St. John, Yvonne Owusumensah, et al., & Bryan Sirota v. CACH, LLC, Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC; & Unifund CCR Partners, Inc. At issue was whether 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692 e(5) dictates that a debt collector must intend to proceed to trial when it files a lawsuit to collect a debt. The Court agreed with Appellees that e(5) contains no such requirement.