Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Here’s a rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases we’ve covered.
03/22/2024 10:50 A.M.
3 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 19-22:
March 19:
Reppy & Reppy v. Cenlar FSB, Inc. & Mickel Law Firm: Court Finds Law Firm Was Not Exempt from FDCPA
An Arkansas federal district court held that while a law firm was exempt from the Arkansas Statutory Foreclosure Act and the Arkansas Fair Debt Collections Practices Act based a state law attorney exemption from prosecution, it was not exempt from the FDCPA.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Schultz v. Credit Control: Court Approved Settlement Agreement for an Amount Greater Than What is Allowed by the FDCPA
A court approved a class-action settlement that provided $4,000 more for unnamed class members than the FDCPA allowed.
Continue reading the case summary here.
March 20:
Merced v. Resurgent Capital Services: Consumer Lacked Standing to Pursue Statute of Limitations Disclaimer Claim
A consumer sued a debt collector because he was confused by the statute of limitations disclaimer in a collection letter.
Continue reading the summary here.
Westbrook v. Equifax: Court Finds Settlement Agreements with Dismissed Defendants Were Subject to Discovery
The court declined to decide whether the “one-satisfaction” rule applied within the context of the parties’ discovery dispute over the production of settlement agreements with other defendants, because the settlement agreements at issue were not confidential and were relevant to the defendant’s defense strategy.
Continue reading the summary here.
March 21:
Peretto v. Erickson: Constable Appointed by the State of Utah Not Exempt from FDCPA
A debt collector claimed it was exempt from the FDCPA as it was a constable appointed by the state of Utah.
Continue reading the summary here.
Marks v. Javitch Block LLC: Court Finds Receipt of Single Letter After Request for Email-Only Communication Did Not State a Claim Under the FDCPA
The court determined that the consumer had standing to bring a claim under the FDCPA on an invasion of privacy theory of injury based on his receipt of a written letter after his request for email communication only. Nevertheless, the court found that the consumer failed to state a claim under FDCPA Section 1692(c) because he failed to allege that he was contacted at an inconvenient time or place.
Continue reading the summary here.
March 22:
Green v. LVNV Funding: Asking How a Debt is Calculated is Not a Dispute Under the FDCPA
A consumer sued a debt collector claiming that it did not report her debt as disputed after she allegedly disputed the debt during a phone call.
Continue reading the summary here.
Dervitz v. ARS National Services: 3rd Circuit Finds Consumer Lacked Article III Standing to Assert Her FDCPA Letter Vendor Claims
The 3rd Circuit vacated the opinion of the district court, ordering that the plaintiff’s letter vendor claims under the FDCPA and state law be remanded to state court.
Continue reading the 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.