In Webster v. Bayview Loan Servicing,plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA and FDCPA, and defendant served plaintiff with an offer of judgment for the full amount of relief sought. In response, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add class allegations, and defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that there was no longer an active case or controversy between the parties after defendant offered complete relief to plaintiff, and the effort to add class allegations was insufficient to stave off dismissal as the only claims at the time the offer was made were the individual claims.
In Dorsey v. Schumacher, P.C., plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by serving plaintiff with a writ of garnishment that failed to contain the FDCPA required disclosures. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the writ was not the initial communication so that the disclosures were not required. The court concluded that there can only be one initial communication, which occurred years earlier in this case, and that the later writ was not required to contain the disclosures, despite the fact that there was evidence that plaintiff had never received the initial communication.
In Roban v. Marinosci Law Group, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by knowingly filing a foreclosure action on a time-barred debt. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the foreclosure action was not debt collection under the FDCPA. The court denied the motion, concluding that the filing of the foreclosure case was debt collection because it also sought payment of the underlying promissory note.► Back to News & Resources