A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
11/5/2021 7:30
Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected].
Here are the cases covered November 2 – November 5:
November 2
Johansen v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited: Court Denies Class Certification for TCPA Claim
The consumer received telemarketing phone calls despite the fact that his phone number was on the National Do Not Call Registry. The consumer moved to certify the class and himself as the class representative.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hunsinger v. Alpha Cash Buyers: Dialer Must Use Random or Sequential Number Generator to be an ATDS
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Facebook v. Duguid, a Texas district court found the plaintiff’s TCPA claim must be dismissed because he failed to adequately allege that the defendant’s text messages were sent using a random or sequential number generator.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection: 11th Circuit Addresses, Affirms Its Earlier Decision
The 11th Circuit declined to revise its earlier holding and sua sponte affirmed its decision holding that supplying debtor information to a third-party mail vendor constituted a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” within the meaning of Section 1692c(b) and so violated the FDCPA prohibitions on “communicating” information about a debt to third parties.
Continue reading the summary here.
November 3
Braun v. Relin, Goldstein & Crane: Consumer Failed to Show Lack of Attorney Involvement
A New York district court dismissed a consumer’s claims alleging lack of attorney involvement and overshadowing, finding the consumer failed to plead sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss.
Continue reading the summary here.
Friend v. Taylor Law: Defendant Wins Summary Judgment of TCPA Claim
Because a collector provided the court with sufficient evidence eliminating any fact question regarding whether the collector’s systems used an ATDS, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the collector of claims based on the TCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Oh v. PHH: Loan Servicer Subject to FDCPA Because it Treated Current Loan as Delinquent
A mortgage loan was transferred to PHH, who treated the loan as if it were in default, even though it was not. PHH began foreclosure proceedings, which it voluntarily dismissed. The consumers with the loan sued PHH for violating the FDCPA. PHH moved to dismiss the FDCPA violation claiming it was not a debt collector. The court held PHH qualified as a debt collector.
Continue reading the summary here.
November 4
Everhart v. Credit Vision: Consumer Must Prove Emotional Damages
A consumer sued a debt collector for not marking her debt as disputed after she allegedly sent a dispute letter. The debt collector never responded to the consumer’s complaint, and she moved for a default judgment. The consumer requested actual damages based on emotional distress as well as statutory damages.
Continue reading the summary here.
Knight v. A.R. Resources: Mention of Credit Reporting in a Collection Letter Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A letter’s reference to credit reporting that could have been interpreted to mean that both the creditor and debt collector might report the debt did not necessarily violate the FDCPA because courts have found that that it is “‘not unlawful for two entities to report the same debt.”
Continue reading the summary here.
Meadows v. Greenback Recovery: Collectors Must Pay Attorneys’ Fees to Consumer
In an FDCPA action, the New Mexico district court ordered the collectors to pay a consumer his attorney fees either (a) as a sanction for failure to respond to the interrogatories, or (b) as civil contempt sanctions to compensate the consumer for losses sustained by the collectors’ refusal to comply with the December 2020 order. The court declined the consumer’s request that the court arrest the uncooperative collectors.
Continue reading the summary here.
November 5
Avina v. Qualia Collection Services: Consumer Lacked Article III Standing Case Remanded to County Court
The consumer filed suit in county court over a non-compliant collection letter. The debt collector had the case removed to federal court. The consumer moved to have the case remanded back to the county court as he lacked Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Pearsall v. Comenity: Court Dismisses Claims Under FDCPA, FCRA, and TCPA by Pro Se Plaintiff
Defendants obtained an early dismissal of all claims by a pro se plaintiff who provided almost no factual detail to support her allegations, however the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.
Continue reading the summary here.
Elysayed v. National Credit Systems: Allegation of 19 Calls, Without More, Did Not Violate FDCPA
An Ohio district court granted a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, finding that an allegation of 19 calls over a one-year period without any evidence that the calls were intended to annoy, abuse or harass the consumer did not violate the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
If you’ve recently obtained a judicial opinion that might benefit other ACA members, email it to us: [email protected].
- Join the discussion on legal and compliance topics with your fellow members on the Members Attorney Program community on The Hub. Simply log on to The Hub and select Members Attorney Program under the Communities menu.
- ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.