A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
10/15/2021 10:00
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 October 12 – October 15:
October 12
Pastian v. Internal Credit Systems: Court Reduces Emotional Distress Award under FDCPA
An Ohio court reduced the award of actual damages from $25,000 to $10,000 based on the limited extent of the plaintiff’s emotional damages but awarded $60,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs after the collector failed to object to the plaintiff’s motion for damages and fees.
Continue reading the summary here.
Noe v. Bruce: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Concerning Amount of Debt
The consumer in this case moved to have her default judgment amended, therefore removing the award of interest in the amount of 36% per annum, which was not allowable under the terms of the note. The court granted the amendment. The consumer then sued, claiming the debt collector misrepresented the amount of the debt and attempted to collect interest that was not owed. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bordeaux v. LTD Financial Services: 1099-C Reporting Disclosure Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A New Jersey district court found that a letter offering to settle a debt did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by including a disclosure regarding the possibility 1099-C reporting. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 13
Poonja v. Kelly Services: ATDS Claims in TCPA Action Sufficient to Survive Dismissal
Because a defendant typically possesses key facts regarding phone technology at the pleading state, a court found sufficient evidence to defeat a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s inference that the defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system. The plaintiff’s inference was based on the fact that the defendant sent a generic text message using a toll-free number and included the STOP function.
Continue reading the summary here.
Smith v. Direct Building Supplies: Consumer Failed to Prove Defendant Placed Calls
The consumer filed a class action complaint alleging he received telemarketing phone calls to his cellphone from a company that did not have his prior express consent to call him. He alleged the company used an automatic telephone dialing system to place these calls.
Continue reading the summary here.
Dobronski v. Total Ins. Brokers: No Willfulness Under TCPA In ‘Canary Trap’
A Michigan district court granted, in part, the debt collector’s motion to dismiss this case. The court found that, because the plaintiff used a false name to entice a return call from the defendant, he gave implied consent to a second call—thereby eliminating the potential for treble damages.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 14
Thome v. The Sayer Law Group: Consumer’s FDCPA Claims Establish Standing
In a decision providing extensive analysis of the requirements of Article III standing, the Iowa district court found a consumer’s claims of emotional distress and overshadowing were sufficient.
Continue reading the summary here.
Norman v. Bosak Motors: A Lowered Credit Score is Insufficient for Standing
An Indiana district court found that a “lowered credit score, without more, is insufficient to constitute an injury in fact sufficient to convey standing upon a plaintiff.”
Continue reading the summary here.
Quaglia v. NS193 et al.: No Standing in Hunstein Class Action
The Northern District of Illinois dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction under Article III. Parting with other 7th Circuit courts, the court applied TransUnion v. Ramirez and questioned the merits of the ruling in Hunstein.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 15
McClain v. American Credit Resolution: Court Denies Emotional Distress Damages
The California district court granted the consumer’s motion for entry of a default judgment on her FDCPA claims and ordered the collector to pay her attorney’s fees. The court denied the consumer’s motion for damages based on her emotional distress claims because these claims alone were unsupported by any factual material.
Continue reading the summary here.
Joe v. Capital Link: Third Party’s FDCPA Claims Fail as She is Not a Consumer
The consumer’s mother received several calls from a debt collector regarding her daughter’s debt. After the first phone call, the consumer’s mother asked the debt collector to stop calling her, however, they did not. The consumer’s mother filed a lawsuit claiming the debt collector violated FDCPA, the TCPA and state collection laws.
Continue reading the summary here.
Dubeck v. Marion: Court Finds Law Firm was Not a Debt Collector in FDCPA Dispute Case
A Nebraska district court found a law firm that sent only eight collection letters over a 10-year period was not a debt collector as defined by 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.
To receive notifications about ACA content—including member alerts, upcoming events and new products—text ALERTS to 96997.
Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency will vary. To opt-out at any time, reply STOP to any message we send.