A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
6/18/2021 8:00
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 June 15-19:
June 15
Reed v. Friedman: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Claims
A consumer purchasing a condo using a fictitious name he registered with a second individual does not have standing to assert Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims related to debts of the condo because the fictitious name entity owned the property and was responsible for the debts.
Continue reading the summary here.
Jordan v. Viceroy Hotel: Court Holds Consumer Lacks Article III Standing Despite Defendant’s Argument to the Contrary
This case, which was originally filed in state court, was removed to federal court. The consumer argued he lacked standing proceed in federal court, while the data furnisher argued he had made a plausible injury-in-fact argument and the case should stay in federal court. The court determined consumer did lack standing and remanded the case to state court.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 16
Rosko v. Rushmore: Daily Decision: No FDCPA Violation for Cashing Check Without Honoring Trademark Deletion Request
A New Jersey district court found a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it cashed a check labeled, “pay for deletion of entire tradeline,” without honoring the deletion request.
Continue reading the summary here.
Williams v. Midwest Recovery: Calls to Wrong Person Results in FDCPA Damage Award
A court awarded $100 in statutory damages to a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claimant, less than the maximum allowed, because the court found a debt collector’s efforts did not involve repetitive or egregious violations.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 17
Carl v. First National Bank of Omaha: Consumer Cannot Unilaterally Revoke Contractually Based Consent
A Maine district court found a consumer’s attempt to unilaterally revoke his consent to receive ATDS calls was not effective because allowing the revocation “would run counter to black-letter contract law in effect at the time Congress enacted the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act].”
Continue reading the summary here.
Mikhael v. Credit Corp Sols.: Letter Did Not Threaten Litigation, Only Indicated it as a Possibility
The consumer received a letter stating, “If payment is not received we will be sending your account to a law firm to be reviewed by an attorney for possible legal options.” The consumer sued stating that letter threatened legal remedy that was not intended to be taken. The debt collector moved to have the case dismissed.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hanrahan v. Statewide Collection: Court Awards Reduced Attorney’s Fees
Courts awarding fees sought by a prevailing party after a Rule 68 settlement offer consider a variety of factors such as whether the legal work was redundant, adequately documented, merely ministerial, or involved excessive hours or rate.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 18
Stone v. Medical Business Bureau; State of Confusion by Itself is Not an Injury
An Illinois district court found a consumer’s state of confusion about a letter and the fact that he hired an attorney regarding the letter did not amount to concrete injuries that would confer Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Almashhadani v. Norris McLaughlin: Court Finds FDCPA Claim Not Time Barred
Consumers sued over misrepresentation of foreclosure fees and the attorney moved to dismiss case because it was time barred under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court held that claim was not time barred because the alleged violation happened during the motion for summary judgment on the foreclosure and the consumers had raised their issue in a timely manner.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hossfeld v. American Financial: TCPA Plaintiff has Article III Standing under AAPC Decision
Another Florida district court has ruled that a Telephone Consumer Protection Act plaintiff had Article III standing to bring TCPA claims during the period from 2015 to 2020. During that time, the government debt collection amendment was unconstitutional and severed from the remainder of the statute under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Barr v. AAPC.
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.