A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
09/08/2023 1:40 P.M.
2.5 minute read
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 Sept. 6-8:
Hejmadi v. Midland Funding: Third Circuit Remands Case Compelling Arbitration for District Court to Decide if Arbitration Was Waived
Two consumers appealed a district court’s decision that the debt buyer had not waived its right to arbitrate their dispute.
St. Vincent Charity v. Paluscsak: Ohio State Court Finds No Standing for Consumer’s FDCPA Claims
An Ohio state court adopted the standing analysis of federal courts on Article III standing, finding a consumer lacked standing to bring his FDCPA and state law claims because he only alleged bare procedural violations.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Pena v. Chaner: Consumer Awarded Reduced Statutory Damages in Default Judgment
A consumer sued a debt collector for violating the FDCPA by, among other things, leaving two voicemails that falsely threatened litigation over her personal debts. The debt collector failed to appear or respond to the complaint. The consumer moved for default judgment and sought $1,000 in statutory damages, $3,000 in actual damages, and $1,660.50 in attorney’s fees and costs.
Loughry v. M&T Mortgage Corp., PNC Bank: A Pennsylvania District Court Found a Consumer Lacked Stading to Assert FCRA Claims
A district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the consumer lacked standing to assert her claims under the FCRA because she failed to allege that she was injured. Additionally, the court noted that even if the plaintiff had standing, the defendants’ actions did not violate the FCRA, because they conducted reasonable investigations and promptly removed the erroneous information.
Rempel v. Fay Servicing: Court Finds Consumer Lacked Standing and Remanded Case to State Court
A consumer sued a servicing company in state court for violating the FDCPA by sending a misleading collection letter. The servicing company had the case removed to federal court, and the consumer moved to remand the case for lack of Article III standing.
Brady v. Vengroff Williams Inc. & VWI Subrogation: Court Holds Subrogation Claims Are Not Subject to the FDCPA
A Pennsylvania district court held that a subrogation claim does not meet the definition of debt under the FDCPA, and therefore, the defendant’s actions in attempting to collect a subrogation claim from the plaintiff did not violate the FDCPA.
Visit the Industry Advancement Fund webpage for more Daily Decision recaps and compliance resources.
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.