A Florida district court refused to distinguish the Hunstein decision on its facts, serving as a reminder to consult with counsel on letter vendor cases filed during the weeks elapsed since the 11th Circuit’s April decision. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
On Aug. 12, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a ruling finding that the Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services Inc. decision was binding precedent and so the court denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
While other district courts within the 11th Circuit (Alabama, Florida and Georgia) faced with arguments about the viability of the Hunstein decision may take the same course as this court, which viewed the decision as binding and applicable, it is possible that in a different case another district judge will view the case as factually distinguishable, ACA International previously reported. If a court took that approach, it would not have to apply the Hunstein decision, which found a collector’s use of a letter vendor violated the proscription in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against disclosing a debtor’s information to a third party.
ACA members should consult with counsel that are actively involved in this issue to ensure they have full benefit of the resources available for Hunstein copycat litigation.
Visit the Hunstein Resource Center for more information and member resources.