In Liste v. Cedar Financial, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA and FCRA, and defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements.  The court agreed and dismissed the suit.  Specifically, the court found that the FCRA claim must be dismissed because, though plaintiff alleged he disputed the credit reporting with the bureaus, plaintiff did not allege that defendant had received notice of the dispute from the credit bureaus or failed to conduct a reasonable investigation.  Moreover, plaintiff's claim that a message was overheard by a third party in violation of the FDCPA was barred by the statute of limitations, and that plaintiff failed to raise any support to equitably toll the limitations period.

 

In Williams v. LVNV Funding, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by credit reporting his debts without inclusion of his dispute and failing to provide the requested validation.   Defendant moved to dismiss both claims, arguing that the FDCPA claim was time-barred and the FCRA claim not sufficiently supported with factual allegations to make the claim plausible.  Finding that an FDCPA claim accrues at the time of the alleged false or misleading communication, the court dismissed the FDCPA claims because plaintiff's validation request in response to any validation notice must have occurred more than 1 year prior to filing suit if the validation request was timely and within the 30 day period.  However, claims arising out of defendant's credit reporting that occurred within  the year preceding the filing of the lawsuit survived, as the court found that credit reporting was collection activity subject to the FDCPA.

 

In Ochoa v. US Bank, the court recognized the long standing and well-established principle that actions taken to foreclose on a property pursuant to a Deed of Trust are not debt collection within the meaning of the FDCPA, and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint.

 

In Southwell v, Mortgage Investors, plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that defendant violated the TCPA by making automated telemarketing calls without consent to persons registered on a Do Not Call list.  After the court denied plaintiff's motion to certify the class, defendant moved for summary judgment on three grounds: (1) any calls to plaintiff were made within the TCPA's "safe harbor" period applicable to Do Not Call registry violations; (2) plaintiff's cell phone was used as his business phone and therefore not covered by the TCPA; and (3) plaintiff consented to the calls by providing his cell number on a loan applciation.  The court rejected the first defense, finding whether defendant's procedures implemented to avoid violations were reasonable was a question of fact.  The court also found that plaintiff's occasional use of his phone as a business line did not prevent the conclusion that plaintiff was a residential telephone subscriber with standing to assert TCPA claims.  Finally, the court rejected the consent defense, finding that even if consent was given, it was revoked when plaintiff registered on a company specific do not call registry.

 

In Steele v. Santander, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone without consent.  Defendant moved to compel arbitration and dismiss, which was granted by the court.  The court concluded that there was a valid, enforceable arbitration provision in a contract between the parties that prohibited the lawsuit.

Back to News & Resources