A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
02/17/2023 2:50 P.M.
4.5 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 Feb. 14-17:
Feb. 14:
Trevino v. U.S. Bank: Defendants Liable for Substantial Attorneys’ Fees Despite Sizeable Reduction
Consumers who brought FDCPA claims based on a bank’s failure to correct a filing in a bankruptcy case were awarded $9,000 in punitive damages. The court found that the defendants’ failure to conduct due diligence to verify the status of certain taxes constituted bad faith, which undermined the bankruptcy process and constituted a violation of the FDCPA.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Owoh v. Sena: Court Holds Consumer Must Object to Proof of Claim Amount Before Confirmation Hearing
A consumer claimed that an attorney filed a proof of claim that misstated the amount due in violation of the FDCPA.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Berrian v. Midland Credit Mgmt: Court Grants Summary Judgment on FDCPA Claims
A Pennsylvania district court granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector, finding the debt collector did not violate any provision of the FDPCA and only engaged in “run-of-the-mill debt collection efforts that do not subject it to tort liability.”
Continue reading the case summary here.
Feb. 15:
Koester v. Pelican Investment: Consumer’s TCPA Claims Are Sufficiently Detailed to Proceed
A consumer’s allegation that he asked a caller who they were and that they identified a company was sufficient to tie the consumer’s TCPA claims to that company. TCPA claims based on Section 227(c)(5) must allege multiple calls within 12 months and do not have to involve an ATDS but can involve a call by a live voice.
Continue reading the summary here.
Velez-Aguilar v. Sequium Asset Solutions: 3rd Circuit Affirms Consumer’s Lack of Article III Standing in FDCPA Case
A consumer incurred a debt that was reduced to judgment. After several years, the debt was purchased by a debt buyer who attempted to collect the debt through a debt collector. The consumer claimed that the collection letter sent by the debt collector was misleading and violated the FDCPA. A district court found that the consumer lacked standing. The consumer appealed the court’s decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
Felberbaum v. Mandarich: 2nd Circuit Finds No Disclaimer Required When Attorney Claimed Review of a Collection Letter
The 2nd Circuit held that the attorney’s affidavit established that he conducted a meaningful review of the account before sending a collection letter. Therefore, the letter was not required to include an “attorney involvement” disclaimer.
Continue reading the summary here.
Feb. 16:
Abramson v. AP Gas & Elec.: Receiving Prerecorded Messages Without Consent Confers Standing in TCPA Claim
A consumer alleged that AP Gas violated the TCPA by sending him prerecorded telemarketing calls to promote AP Gas goods and services without their consent.
Continue reading the summary here.
Metzler v. Pure Energy: TCPA Claims Allege Enough to Establish Standing But Still Lack Sufficient Detail and Are Dismissed
When a consumer claimed that he received a ringless voicemail, which he determined was a prerecorded message, but did not allege other supporting facts from which the court could infer that the message was prerecorded rather than the product of a live person reading from a script, the consumer failed to meet the requirement that the allegations be plausible and not just possible.
Continue reading the summary here.
Angulo v. Truist Bank: Failure to Show Reputational Harm Dooms FCRA Claims
In dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing, an Illinois district court found that it was not enough for a plaintiff to say that his reputation was harmed without explaining how it was harmed.
Continue reading the summary here.
Feb. 17:
Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Dean: Court Finds TILA Mortgage Statements Did Not Violate Automatic Stay
In reversing the decision of the bankruptcy court, the district court found that the mortgage statements in question were not a collection attempt, therefore the notices did not violate the bankruptcy automatic stay.
Continue reading the summary here.
Davis v. Reliance First Capital: Court Allows Consumer’s TCPA Class Action to Proceed
A consumer allegedly received four unsolicited prerecorded calls from the same number and one voicemail using a prerecorded voice from a marketing company. The consumer filed a class action lawsuit claiming the calls violated the TCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Colbert v. National Credit Systems: Court Rejects Hunstein-Type FDCPA Claims
Where a consumer alleged a debt collector privately transferred information about her debt to a third-party letter vendor or mail house that entered the information into a standard letter, which it printed and mailed to the consumer, the consumer’s claim lacked the element of publicity, did not bear a close relationship to the tort of public disclosure of private information, and failed to provide a concrete injury necessary for 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.
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.
