A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
01/06/2023 12:05 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 Jan. 3-6:
Morales v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc.: Collection Letter Reference to Debt Renewal Does Not Violate FDCPA
Based on New Jersey law governing the statute of limitations, a court found a debt collection letter did not violate the FDCPA where the letter informed the consumer she could renew a debt and start the time period for the filing of a lawsuit if the consumer took specific actions such as making certain payments on the debt or making a written promise to pay.
Redman v. Javitch Block: 4th Circuit Affirms District Court’s Ruling to Remand Case to State Court
A debt collector appealed the district court’s decision to remand a case to state court.
Simpson v. Revco Solutions: Court Finds Single Letter Sent After Notification of Attorney Representation Did Not Confer Standing
An Illinois district court found that a consumer did not have Article III standing to sue a debt collector based solely on her receipt of a collection letter that was sent after she notified the debt collector of legal representation.
Mitchell v. Specialized Loan Servicing: 9th Circuit Rejects CARES Act/FCRA Claim
The 9th Circuit held that reporting an “account status” as “current account” and with as “D” for the payment history profile complied with the CARES Act’s amendments to the FCRA relating to the reporting of loans in forbearance.
Middleton v. Wells Fargo: Court Summarily Tosses FDCPA and TCPA Claims by Repeat Filer
Where a consumer has been deemed by the court to be a vexatious litigant subject to pre-screening requirements in federal court, the consumer cannot evade the requirements by initially filing in state court where it is possible or likely the filing will be removed to federal court.
McCain v. LTD Financial Services: Court Denies Debt Collector’s Petition for Attorney’s Fees
A consumer sued a debt collector for calling her after it had been allegedly informed that the consumer was represented by counsel. The consumer voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. The debt collector then petitioned the court for attorney’s fees claiming the consumer sued them in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.
Muccio v. Global Motivation: Court Dismisses TCPA Claims Based on Five Text Messages
When assessing whether a consumer has alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate a concrete injury to support standing under the TCPA, a certain number of messages alone is not enough to show injury. The court’s focus is on the qualitative nature of the injury, not on a quantitative measurement.
Cooper v. Credit Mgmt: Court Holds Consumer Cannot Assign FDCPA Claims to Another Party for Litigation
A consumer claimed he was assigned 100% of a non-party’s FDCPA claim and sued several debt collectors for violating the FDCPA by not reporting that the non-party’s debts were disputed on his credit report. The debt collectors moved to dismiss.
Laccinole v. MRS BPO: Court Tosses Successive FDCPA Lawsuits for Claims Splitting
In dismissing the plaintiff’s second of three FDCPA lawsuits related to the same collection activity, the court held that a litigant with multiple related claims must not separate or split the claims into multiple successive cases.
Valentine v. Unifund CCR: Court Finds Merely Receiving an Allegedly Misleading Letter Does Not Establish Article III Standing
A New Jersey district court held that merely receiving an allegedly misleading collection letter does not amount to a concrete injury absent some action or inaction taken in response to the letter or some other form of injury.
Mickman v. Philadelphia Professional Collections: Court Dismisses FDCPA Claims Barred by Issue Preclusion
When a consumer’s FDCPA claims in federal court rested on the validity of a debt at issue in a state court collection action, and the state court judgment found the debt was valid, the federal court concluded the elements of issue preclusion were satisfied and dismissed the FDCPA claims with prejudice.
Polhill v. Navient Sols.: Court Denies Summary Judgment Due to Unanswered Questions of Material Fact
A consumer received calls about her brother’s student loan default because she co-signed the loans. The consumer claimed she revoked her consent to call, but the servicer continued to call her after she revoked her consent. The servicer moved for summary judgment.
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.
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.