Daily Decision Recap: Court Allows Claim to Proceed Due to Lack of Evidence Showing Defendant Was Not a Debt Collector

A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.

7/2/2021 8:00 AM

FCRAFDCPANewsTCPAIndustry Advancement Fund
Daily Decision Recap: Court Allows Claim to Proceed Due to Lack of Evidence Showing Defendant Was Not a Debt Collector

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 dailydecision@acainternational.org.

Here are the cases covered June 29 - July 2:

June 29

Saroza v. Lyons: Court Grants Summary Judgment for Collection Firm

After establishing the plaintiff had standing for his FDCPA claims, the court granted summary judgment because the defendant’s dunning letter properly included costs with the principal amount of the debt.

Continue reading the summary here.

Hufnus v. Donotpay: Court Finds Dialing Platform is Not an ATDS

The court found that the defendant’s dialing platform was not an ATDS because it “only contacts phone numbers specifically provided by consumers during [the defendant’s] registration process, and not phone numbers identified in a random or sequential fashion.”

Continue reading the summary here.

Thomas v. CBC: Debt Collector Not Obligated to Confirm CRA Removed Information as Requested

The consumer disputed medical debt on her credit report. Close to the same time, the medical provider asked the debt collector to stop credit reporting all of their accounts. The debt collector complied. One CRA did not remove the accounts from the consumer’s credit report. The consumer sued claiming the debt collector did not report her debt as disputed.

Continue reading the summary here.

June 30

Klein v. Foster & Garbus: Collection Letter Adequately Listed Amount of the Debt

A court found that, although a letter did not track the precise language of the 2nd Circuit’s Avila disclosure, its reference to “interest or other charges or fees accru[ing] on this account” was not misleading. 

Continue reading the summary here.

Bradley v. Progress Residential Property Manager: Court Allows Claim to Proceed Due to Lack of Evidence Showing Defendant Was Not a Debt Collector

The consumer claimed the property management company was a debt collector under the FDCPA and violated the FDCPA by providing deceptive forms. The property management company denied being a debt collector but did not provide enough facts to disprove the consumer’s claim. The court granted in part and denied in part the property management company’s motion to dismiss.

Continue reading the summary here.

Keyes v. Nationstar: FDCPA Defendants Win Sanctions Award Against Plaintiff’s Attorney

The District Court of New Jersey refused to reconsider its award of sanctions against a plaintiff’s attorney in an FDCPA action where the attorney raised arguments that were clearly barred, repeatedly missed deadlines and filed frivolous motions.

Continue reading the summary here.

July 1

Green v. Americollect: Court Examines Reasonable Investigation of Consumer Dispute

The consumer claimed the debt collector did not remove the disputed status from her account after she sent a letter to Equifax requesting the removal of the disputed status from her account. The consumer claimed violation of both the FDCPA and FCRA. The debt collector moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Continue reading the summary here.

Van Conor v. One Life American: South Carolina Court Finds TCPA Plaintiff Has Standing

The latest court to find TCPA plaintiffs have standing to sue for claims arising during the 2015-2020 time period finds permitting such claims does not constitute a content-based restriction on free speech, but instead creates a disparity in treatment based on the absence of fair notice to one category of defendants. This disparity does not preclude standing.

Continue reading the summary here.

July 2

Ingram v. Experian: Court Finds Consumer Failed to Raise a Bona Fide Dispute 

The consumer claimed an account was opened in his name fraudulently. The consumer disputed the debt with the creditor and debt collector but failed to provide requested information, such as a police report, until after litigation had begun. 

Continue reading the summary here.

Reyes v. NAR: Collectors Win Dismissal on Two Grounds

Citing the Petition Clause, the Utah District Court dismissed a consumer’s claim that collectors violated Section 1692f(1) and 1692e of the FDCPA by seeking to recover collection fees in a related state court litigation. The court also dismissed the consumer’s claim that a proposed confession of judgment violated 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: dailydecision@acainternational.org.
  • 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.

Follow ACA International on Twitter @ACAIntl and @acacollector, Facebook and request to join our LinkedIn group for news and event updates. ACA International members are welcome to submit news items for possible publication to comm@acainternational.org. Visit our publications page for news submission guidelines and subscriptions to ACA Daily, Collector magazine and Pulse.

Advertising is available for companies wishing to promote their products or services. Be sure to visit the ACA Events Calendar on the Education and Training page to view our listing of upcoming CORE Curriculum and Hot Topic seminars featuring critical educational opportunities for your company.


Subscribe to ACA Daily NEWSROOM

Daily Decision Recap: Court Allows Claim to Proceed Due to Lack of Evidence Showing Defendant Was Not a Debt Collector

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 dailydecision@acainternational.org.

Here are the cases covered June 29 - July 2:

June 29

Saroza v. Lyons: Court Grants Summary Judgment for Collection Firm

After establishing the plaintiff had standing for his FDCPA claims, the court granted summary judgment because the defendant’s dunning letter properly included costs with the principal amount of the debt.

Continue reading the summary here.

Hufnus v. Donotpay: Court Finds Dialing Platform is Not an ATDS

The court found that the defendant’s dialing platform was not an ATDS because it “only contacts phone numbers specifically provided by consumers during [the defendant’s] registration process, and not phone numbers identified in a random or sequential fashion.”

Continue reading the summary here.

Thomas v. CBC: Debt Collector Not Obligated to Confirm CRA Removed Information as Requested

The consumer disputed medical debt on her credit report. Close to the same time, the medical provider asked the debt collector to stop credit reporting all of their accounts. The debt collector complied. One CRA did not remove the accounts from the consumer’s credit report. The consumer sued claiming the debt collector did not report her debt as disputed.

Continue reading the summary here.

June 30

Klein v. Foster & Garbus: Collection Letter Adequately Listed Amount of the Debt

A court found that, although a letter did not track the precise language of the 2nd Circuit’s Avila disclosure, its reference to “interest or other charges or fees accru[ing] on this account” was not misleading. 

Continue reading the summary here.

Bradley v. Progress Residential Property Manager: Court Allows Claim to Proceed Due to Lack of Evidence Showing Defendant Was Not a Debt Collector

The consumer claimed the property management company was a debt collector under the FDCPA and violated the FDCPA by providing deceptive forms. The property management company denied being a debt collector but did not provide enough facts to disprove the consumer’s claim. The court granted in part and denied in part the property management company’s motion to dismiss.

Continue reading the summary here.

Keyes v. Nationstar: FDCPA Defendants Win Sanctions Award Against Plaintiff’s Attorney

The District Court of New Jersey refused to reconsider its award of sanctions against a plaintiff’s attorney in an FDCPA action where the attorney raised arguments that were clearly barred, repeatedly missed deadlines and filed frivolous motions.

Continue reading the summary here.

July 1

Green v. Americollect: Court Examines Reasonable Investigation of Consumer Dispute

The consumer claimed the debt collector did not remove the disputed status from her account after she sent a letter to Equifax requesting the removal of the disputed status from her account. The consumer claimed violation of both the FDCPA and FCRA. The debt collector moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Continue reading the summary here.

Van Conor v. One Life American: South Carolina Court Finds TCPA Plaintiff Has Standing

The latest court to find TCPA plaintiffs have standing to sue for claims arising during the 2015-2020 time period finds permitting such claims does not constitute a content-based restriction on free speech, but instead creates a disparity in treatment based on the absence of fair notice to one category of defendants. This disparity does not preclude standing.

Continue reading the summary here.

July 2

Ingram v. Experian: Court Finds Consumer Failed to Raise a Bona Fide Dispute 

The consumer claimed an account was opened in his name fraudulently. The consumer disputed the debt with the creditor and debt collector but failed to provide requested information, such as a police report, until after litigation had begun. 

Continue reading the summary here.

Reyes v. NAR: Collectors Win Dismissal on Two Grounds

Citing the Petition Clause, the Utah District Court dismissed a consumer’s claim that collectors violated Section 1692f(1) and 1692e of the FDCPA by seeking to recover collection fees in a related state court litigation. The court also dismissed the consumer’s claim that a proposed confession of judgment violated 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: dailydecision@acainternational.org.
  • 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.

Follow ACA International on Twitter @ACAIntl and @acacollector, Facebook and request to join our LinkedIn group for news and event updates. ACA International members are welcome to submit news items for possible publication to comm@acainternational.org. Visit our publications page for news submission guidelines and subscriptions to ACA Daily, Collector magazine and Pulse.

Advertising is available for companies wishing to promote their products or services. Be sure to visit the ACA Events Calendar on the Education and Training page to view our listing of upcoming CORE Curriculum and Hot Topic seminars featuring critical educational opportunities for your company.


Subscribe to ACA Daily NEWSROOM

Loading...

Loading...

Scroll to Top