A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
7/23/2021 12:00
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 July 20-23:
July 20
Perrong v. Victory Phones LLC: “Serial Plaintiff’s” TCPA VoIP Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that “connecting a VoIP service with a charge-per-call function to a residential telephone line opens the dialer to liability under the call-charged provision” of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lawson v. Michigan First Credit: Credit Furnisher Wins Summary Judgment
The court granted the defendant’s motion to deny class certification on the plaintiff’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim, finding the plaintiff failed to meet the typicality requirements of Rule 23.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hoven v. Buckles & Buckles: Law Firm’s Garnishment Procedures Qualified for Bona Fide Error Defense
A Michigan district court found the law firm’s written procedures to record, track, and, if and as appropriate, back out post-judgment garnishment costs that were not recoverable, were reasonably designed to avoid the error at issue.
Continue reading the summary here.
July 21
Franklin v. Navient: Court Amends Previous Judgment, Finds Calls Still Do Not Violate TCPA
The court amended a previous ruling that calls to consumer fell under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s exception to collect government debt were not liable under the TCPA. The court then examined the debt collector’s other argument that there was no evidence it called consumer using an autodialer.
Continue reading the summary here.
Walker v. Pitnell: Court Finds Alleged Misrepresentation in Court Filing Was Not Materially Misleading
The 2nd Circuit concluded that an alleged misrepresentation in a foreclosure filing regarding the identity of the consumer’s creditor was not materially misleading because it did not prevent the consumer from filing a reply affirmation or continuing to challenge the foreclosure judgment.
Continue reading the summary here.
July 22
Zielniski v. Citizens Bank: Lender Wins Summary Judgment on State and Federal Claims
A lender won summary judgment of claims alleging it violated various Massachusetts state consumer protection laws as well as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Home Affordable Modification Program.
Continue reading the summary here.
Harvey v. Waterfall: District Court Rejects RESPA and TDCA Claims
A Texas district court found a consumer’s Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claim failed because the defendant was not the servicer of the loan, and therefore was not subject to the act.
Continue reading the summary here.
Zirpoli v. Midland: Ability to Enforce Arbitration Denied as Loan Purchased Without License
The consumer sued the debt purchaser for credit reporting his debt and pulling his credit report without permissible purpose because the debt purchaser was not lawfully permitted to purchase the loan. The debt purchaser attempted to compel arbitration. The court found the debt purchaser could not compel arbitration because the contract to purchase the debt was void.
Continue reading the summary here.
July 23
Chuluunbat v. Experian: Seventh Circuit Finds CRAs Properly Investigated Consumers Disputes
The consumers appealed the district courts’ decisions that CRAs had properly investigated their claims that certain creditors listed on their credit reports did not own the debts reported. The 7th Circuit affirmed the district courts’ decisions.
Continue reading the summary here.
Beckford v. Clarity Services: CRA Had Permissible Purpose
The court found a CRA had a permissible purpose to furnish the consumer’s credit information to an on-line lender because the consumer applied for and accepted a loan from the lender.
Continue reading the summary here.
Cano v. Assured Auto: Court Has Jurisdiction for TCPA Claims
Creating a split within the District of Texas, a N.D. Texas judge held the court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, rejecting Creasy and three decisions from the E.D. Texas, which held the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims arising during the key time period.
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.