Celebrating more than 60 years of exceeding client expectations.


News & Resources

October 31, 2014 Case Digest

In Battles v. Clarfield, Okon, Saomone & Pincus, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by filing a collection lawsuit to collect his defaulted student loans. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that any false or misleading statements made in the state court action were protected by the litigation privilege.  The court denied the motion, finding the litigation privilege applies only to state law claims, and that the federal FDCPA claims are not insulted by a state privilege.

Read more

October 30, 2014 Case Digest

In Johnson v. USAA Federal Savings Bank, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone attempting to collect his past due credit card debt.  Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had consented to the calls by providing the cell phone number on his online profile, and that the service terms and conditions entitled defendant to call plaintiff.  The court granted the motion, finding that plaintiff had consented to the calls by listing the cell number with the defendant, and by failing to effectively revoke that consent simply by asking that defendant stop calling him while talking on his home phone, because he continued to list the number on his online profile.

Read more

October 29, 2014 Case Digest

In Thompson v. CACH, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by filing a wage garnishment summons on plaintiff’s employer when defendant knew, or should have known, that plaintiff was not the judgment debtor.  Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claim under Sec. 1692e(5), which generally prohibits threatening to take legal actions as a means of scaring debtors into making a payment.  The court granted the motion, finding that there was no threat to take legal action; defendant actually undertook the legal action of garnishing plaintiff’s wages.

Read more

October 28, 2014 Case Digest

In Walter v. HSM Receivables, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA.  Defendant filed a bad faith counterclaim, contending that plaintiff’s action was brought for an improper purpose under Section 1692k(a)(3) of the FDCPA.  The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that though a debt collector may have a claim for recovery of attorney fees if a case is filed in bad faith, counterclaims are premature until there is a finding of bad faith on the part of the debtor.

Read more

October 27, 2014 Case Digest

In Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect statutory interest on a purchased debt after the original creditor waived the contractual right to collect interest.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding that the statutory interest charge was permitted by state law, and plaintiff appeal.  The appellate court reversed, finding that there is no right under state law to collect statutory interest after the contractual interest right is waived, and that attempting to collect any interest after waiver is a violation of the FDCPA.

Read more

October 23, 2014 Case Digest

In Hageman v. Barton, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA while attempting to collect a debt incurred for medical services by filing suit in the wrong creditor’s name and improperly adding interest charges.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were time barred.  The court agreed, and in rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the limitation period should be equitably tolled, concluding that tolling was not an available remedy because the limitations period under the FDCPA is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling.

Read more

October 22, 2014 Case Digest

In Lewis v. Nationstar, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by continuing collection activity after receipt of a verification request without first verifying the debt.  Defendant move dot dismiss, arguing that the verification had already been provided to plaintiff by an earlier agency.  The court denied the motion, finding that the FDCPA required each debt collector to independently verify a debt before resuming collection activity, even if the debt had already been verified.

 

Read more

October 21, 2014 Case Digest

In Moore v. DISH, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone with an ATDS attempting to contact a third party.  The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which were denied in part and granted in part.  The court first concluded that plaintiff, who had obtained the cell phone as part of the federal Lifeline program and was not charged for the calls, still could state a claim under the TCPA because there was no requirement that he be charged for the calls.  The court also found that plaintiff, who was not the intended recipient of the calls, had standing under the TCPA because he was the subscriber of the phone, and that the intended recipient of the calls was not relevant.  The court found plaintiff had standing for even those calls that were received at a time that plaintiff was not carrying the cell phone.  Finally, the court found that a predictive dialer is equipment covered by the TCPA, and that the dialer used by defendant was a predictive dialer, rejecting defendant’s argument that the dialing equipment was not an ATDS because there was human involvement in the creation of the dialing list, concluding that the equipment met the definition of a predictive dialer because it dialed telephone numbers from a stored list without human intervention. 

Read more

October 20, Case Digest

In Hart v. Credit Service Company, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect a debt that was not owed because the purchased item was returned in exchange for full settlement of the debt, as evidenced by the issuance of a 1099-C by the creditor.  The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.  The court entered summary judgment for defendant, finding that plaintiff had offered no evidence that returning the purchased goods settled the account,  and that the issuance of a 1099-C does not constitute notice that a debt is being forgiven.  The court found that issuing a 1099-C, standing alone, does not equal extinguishment of the debt.

Read more

October 18, 2014 Case Digest

In Graveling v. Sirote & Permute, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by continuing collection efforts after receipt of plaintiff's request to cease further communications.  Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff's cease and desist letter was also a debt dispute, which gave defendant the option to either cease collections, or verify the debt, and that the subsequent communications were to verify the debt.  The court agreed with defendant, concluding that defendant properly communicated with plaintiff to verify the debt.

Read more

Categories


Archives



FOUNDED IN 1958 IN NEW ORLEANS, WE NOW SERVICE CLIENTS THROUGHOUT THE NATION

  • California

    San Diego

    1545 Hotel Circle South
    Suite 150
    San Diego, California 92108-3426

    T: (619) 758-1891
    F: (619) 296-2013

    View Details
  • Colorado

    Fort Collins

    645 Stonington Lane
    Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-8286

    T: (970) 223-4420
    F: (877) 334-0661

    View Details
  • Florida

    Tampa

    3350 Buschwood Park Dr. Suite 195
    Tampa, Florida 33618

    T: (813) 890-2460
    F: (877) 334-0661

    View Details
  • Georgia

    Atlanta

    5229 Roswell Road
    N.E.

    Atlanta, Georgia 30342

    T: (678) 403-0203
    F: (877) 334-0661

    View Details
  • Illinois

    Chicago

    141 W. Jackson Blvd
    Chicago, Illinois 60604

    T: (312) 578-0990
    F: (312) 578-0991

    View Details
  • Louisiana

    Metairie

    Lakeway Two
    Suite 200
    Metairie, Louisiana 70002-7227

    T: (504) 828-3700
    F: (504) 828-3737

    View Details

    New Orleans

    400 Poydras Street
    New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

    T: (504) 582-1500
    F: (504) 582-1555

    View Details
  • New Jersey

    Flemington

    3 Cross Creek Drive
    Flemington, New Jersey 08822-4938

    T: (908) 237-1660
    F: (877) 334-0661

    View Details
  • New York

    Buffalo

    Sheridan Meadows Corporate Park - South
    Williamsville, New York 14221-4800

    T: (716) 636-5178
    F: (877) 334-0661

    View Details
  • Pennsylvania

    Philadelphia

    3682 Green Ridge Road
    Furlong, Pennsylvania 18925

    T: (267) 544-0840
    F: (877) 334-0661

    View Details
  • Texas

    Dallas

    Founders Square
    Dallas, Texas 75202

    T: (214) 741-3001
    F: (214) 741-3055

    View Details

  • Brand Elite 2017
  • RMA
  • Best Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers