A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
9/24/2021 8:30
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 September 21 – September 24:
September 21
Silver v. Dystrup-Chiang: Court Dismisses FDCPA Claims That Lack Factual Detail
Because a consumer’s claims contained only a threadbare recital or formulaic recitation of the elements of unfair debt collection claims and included no factual information to flesh out the assertions, the court dismissed the claims without prejudice for failing to meet the minimum pleading requirements considered in Iqbal and Twombly.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hall v. Altus Legal: Hiring a Lawyer Not a Concrete Harm
An Illinois district court found that because hiring a lawyer cannot establish standing, the consumer’s claim of “having to defend himself” in a foreclosure action was not a harm sufficient for standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Green v. Innovis: Consumer Failed to Provide Proof of Furnisher’s Lack of Reasonable Procedures
The consumer in this case disputed his mortgage tradeline on his credit report. The consumer reporting agency (CRA) investigated the dispute and removed the tradeline in question. The consumer sued the CRA claiming it lacked “reasonable procedures” for investigating disputes.
Continue reading the summary here.
September 22
Friend v. Cach: FDCPA Claims Dismissed Due to Lack of Concrete Injury
When a consumer failed to establish that he suffered a concrete injury traceable to a collector’s alleged Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation, the court held the consumer lacked standing to sue and dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Continue reading the summary here.
Kleinman v. Forster & Garbus: Validation Letter Stating Lawsuit Will Not Commence Until After Validation Period Expires, Does Not Violate FDCPA
A consumer claimed a debt collection letter overshadowed the validation period because it could be interpreted as threatening imminent litigation. He also claimed the letter contained contradictory information as well as an intimidating letterhead which overshadowed the validation period. The debt collector moved for judgment on the pleadings.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lueck v. The Bureaus & Stoneleigh: No Standing Regarding a Letter Marked “Personal and Confidential"
An Illinois district court found that while the presence of the phrase “Personal & Confidential” on the envelope addressed to the consumer may have violated Section 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that alone was insufficient to establish standing without an accompanying injury.
Continue reading the summary here.
September 23
Van Connor v. One Life Am.: Court Denies Request for Interlocutory Appeal
A South Carolina district court refused to certify an interlocutory appeal, citing the majority of decisions plus the recent 6th Circuit decision in Lindenbaum holding the Supreme Court’s AAPC decision applied retroactively, leaving the unsevered portion of the TCPA's robocall restriction in effect during the intervening period.
Continue reading the summary here.
Pinyuk v. The CBE Group: Multiple Addresses on Validation Notice Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A New York district court found that a letter showing three addresses for the debt collector was not deceptive or misleading under the FDCPA when the addresses were read in the context of the entire letter.
Continue reading the summary here.
Epps v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing: Letter Stating Debt Settled in Full and Including Mini-Miranda Not Misleading Under FDCPA
The consumer received a letter from a debt collector informing her that her debt was settled in full and that it was a communication from a debt collector. The consumer claimed this was an FDCPA violation and filed a lawsuit. The court held that the letter was not misleading.
Continue reading the summary here.
September 24
Sturm v. Alpha Recovery Corp.: Collector Wins Summary Judgment in FDCPA Action
Because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act only requires a collector to identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, a court rejected the consumer’s arguments asserting a collector must show the entire chain of title of the debt in question.
Continue reading the summary here.
Goodell v. Van Tuyl Grp.: TCPA Litigants Who Lacked Standing Allowed to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery
The consumers received calls from car dealerships after they requested the calls cease. The consumers sued the company that owned the dealerships claiming it was vicariously liable for the alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations committed by the dealerships. The court found the consumers did not have standing to proceed with their claim, but allowed them to conduct discovery to gather evidence to the contrary.
Continue reading the summary here.
Tolliver v. National Credit Systems: Alleged Risk of Financial or Reputational Harm Not Enough for Standing
A Wisconsin district court found the consumer failed to show any evidence to support his alleged risk of financial or reputational harm.
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.