A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
03/24/2023 1:15 P.M.
4 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 March 21 – 24.
March 21
Durden v. DNF Assoc.: Court Finds Consumer Alleged an Injury-in-Fact But Lacked Article III Standing
A consumer sued a debt collector in state court, claiming that the debt in question was not hers and the debt collector had attempted to collect money that she did not owe. The case was removed to federal court, and the debt collector challenged the consumer standing to proceed.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Rider v. Uphold HQ: Court Dismisses State Law Claims Based on Alleged Violation of Federal Law Lacking Private Right of Action
A New York state General Business Law claim is viable where the plaintiff makes a free-standing claim of deceptiveness under GBL Section 349 that happens to overlap with a possible claim under another statute that is not independently actionable. The claim fails where the violation of the other statute by conduct that is not inherently deceptive is claimed to constitute a deceptive practice that serves as the basis for the GBL Section 349 claim. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the case summary here.
March 22
Rodriguez v. Equifax: Court Finds Consumer Alleged Negligent and Willful Violation of the FCRA
A consumer alleged that he notified Equifax that the notation showing his account as disputed was inaccurate because the account was no longer in dispute. The plaintiff did not receive any reinvestigation results from Equifax. As of Jan. 28, 2022, when the plaintiff obtained another Equifax credit report, the report still reflected the allegedly inaccurate information.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Dukes v. LVNV: Fees Awarded Against Attorney for Vexatious and Unreasonable Conduct
A court awarded attorneys’ fees against a consumer’s lawyer who acted unreasonably and vexatiously by pursuing summary judgment after a deposition showed his client’s FDCPA claims were without basis.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Thomas: Inclusion of FDCPA Language in State Required Foreclosure Notice Violated State Law
A New York state court held that a bank violated state law by including the FDCPA validation notice in the same communication as a foreclosure notice required under state law.
Continue reading the case summary here.
March 23
Denmon v. Kansas Counselors: Court Finds Standing and Grants Summary Judgment for Consumer on FDCPA Claim
A consumer wrote a collector several years after the end of the initial validation period to dispute a debt and also directed the collector to not contact her about the debt. The court found the collector was no longer obligated under the FDCPA to provide the consumer with verification of the debt, and that the collector violated the FDCPA by writing to the consumer.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Widmer v. Weltman: Consumer Must Assert Exemptions or Immunity to Garnishment, Not Debt Collector
A consumer alleged that a debt collector violated the FDCPA when it garnished his joint bank account despite knowing it contained entireties property immune from execution under Pennsylvania law.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Stones v. J&M Securities: No Costs and Fees for Removal Based on FDCPA Claim
A court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for costs and fees associated with the defendant’s removal of a case to federal court, because the defendant had a reasonable basis for removal due to the plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim.
Continue reading the case summary here.
March 24
Louis v. Deshmukh: Court Finds Summons and Complaint a Communication Under the FDCPA
A consumer claimed that a debt collector violated the FDCPA by including an allegedly unlawful collection fee in the amount it sought to recover from the consumer in a state court action. The debt collector moved to dismiss and moved for sanctions against the consumer. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Calderone v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP: Court Finds Traffic Fines Are Not a Debt Under the FDCPA
A Washington district court found that a consumer could not pursue his FDCPA claims related to the collection of traffic fines because the fines did not constitute a debt as defined under the FDCPA.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Daschbach v. Rocket Mortgage: Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration Based on Online Terms of Use
To enable a consumer to meaningfully consent, a website notice must be displayed in a font size and format such that the court can fairly assume that a reasonably prudent internet user would have seen it.
Continue reading the case summary here.
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.
