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.
04/05/2024 10:20 A.M.
2.5 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 April 2-5:
April 2:
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 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.
April 3:
Panzarella v. Marcus & Hoffman: Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Did Not Apply in Case That Focused on Debt Collector’s Conduct
A consumer sued a debt collection law firm for false, deceptive, and misleading conduct when collecting debts on behalf of its homeowner’s association clients.
Continue reading the summary here.
Grenadyor v. Discovery Financial Services: Court Finds CRA Did Not Violate the FCRA by Continuing to Report a Debt Despite Issuing a 1099-C on the Account
The court held that whether the issuing of a 1099-C canceled a debt was a legal rather that a factual dispute, which CRAs are neither qualified nor obligated to resolve.
Continue reading the summary here.
April 4:
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.
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.
April 5:
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.
Manzanarez v. Madera Collection Services: No Standing for FDCPA Claims Related to Undated Model Validation Notice
A California federal district court found a plaintiff failed to show that he was injured by the collection notice’s lack of a date. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for lack of Article III standing.
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.