News and Resources

In Reyes v. Julia Place Condos, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA while attempting to collect past due home owner association fees.  Plaintiff named the creditor HOA as a defendant, and argued that the HOA was a debt collector under the FDCPA because it was sending collection letters using a false name by having the letters sent on attorney letterhead without meaningful attorney review.  Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that as the creditor, it could not be held liable under or subject to the FDCPA. The court denied the motion, finding that there was a disputed factual issue on whether defendant was sending the letters, and whether the attorney was involved in a meaningful way in the collection of the debt, so that there remained a viable false name theory as a possible exception to the rule excluding creditors from the FDCPA.

In McCord v. Resurgent, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA while attempting to collect a defaulted mortgage debt that had been discharged in bankruptcy while offering a monthly settlement payment.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that there was no false representation that plaintiff remained liable on the debt when offering a payment plan that would have allowed plaintiff to stay in the home.  The court denied the motion, finding that there was a sufficiently plausible claim that defendant's offer misrepresented that plaintiff remained personally liable on a debt that had been discharged in bankruptcy.

In Hill v. Homeward Residential, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone with an automated dialer and without consent.  Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that defendant's description of the telephone equipment used to call plaintiff as an auto-dialer was sufficient to establish that an ATDS was used.  The court rejected this argument, finding that plaintiff had the burden of proving that the calls were made with equipment that satisfied the requisite statutory definition, and that the label applied to the equipment was irrelevant.  Defendant also moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had consented to the calls when he called defendant and advised them that his cell number had changed, and provided the new number.   Plaintiff argued that he did not provide the number, but instead, defendant captured the number during the incoming call.  The court denied defendant's motion, finding that whether plaintiff provided the cell number to defendant prior to the calls starting was a disputed factual issue.

In APB Associates v. Bronco's Saloon, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by sending an unsolicited facsimile soliciation.  Defendant served plaintiff with an offer of judgment, which included full statutory damages, costs and an agreed-upon injunction to prevent future faxes to plaintiff.  After the offer was not accepted by plaintiff, defendant moved to dismiss the claim as being moot.  The court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no remaining dispute after the offer satisfied plaintiff's entire potential demand and granted the motion.