In Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA while attempting to collect unpaid assessments to a condo association by continuing to collect debts without properly verifying the debts.  After the district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff appealed and persuaded the appellate court to reverse the decision.  Specifically, the appellate court concluded, in a matter of first impression in the circuit, that verification of a debt required a debt collector to provide the consumer with notice of how and when the debt was originally incurred or other sufficient notice from which the consumer could sufficiently dispute the debt.  In this case, the verification was insufficient because it lacked details of the debt - such as the date and nature of the transaction, the source of the fee for the service at a specified time or description of a fine for a particular offense. 

 

In Chatman v. GC Services, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by leaving a voice mail message on her cell phone that failed to adequately disclose the caller’s identity, and filed a putative class action lawsuit.  At the time she filed her complaint, plaintiff also filed a motion for class certification, but requested the court to stay briefing on that motion until discovery was completed.  Defendant then served plaintiff with an individual offer of judgment.  After the offer was rejected, defendant moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the case was moot because there was no case or controversy between plaintiff and defendant.  The court denied defendant’s motion, finding that the motion to certify protected plaintiff’s interest in class relief, and avoided a finding a mootness.

 

In Scheetz v. PYOD, LLC, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by operating as a debt buyer and taking assignments of debts without being licensed by the state. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the debt buyer that hired a licensed agency to collect the purchased debts was not required to obtain a license under state law.

 

In Moore v. Stellar Recovery, plaintiff moved to certify a  class of FDCPA consumers that had been the target of defendant’s collection activity which allegedly failed to correctly identify the current creditor in the validation notice. The court certified the case as it related to the letter claim, finding that there was sufficient commonality and typicality in the claims to allow for class status.   

Back to News & Resources