News and Resources

In Cherkaoui v. Santander, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA and FCRA when attempting to collect his mortgage debt.  Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the TCPA claim failed because plaintiff had consented to the calls, and the FCRA claim failed because it had a permissible purpose for pulling plaintiff’s credit report.  In dismissing the TCPA claim, the court found that plaintiff had provided prior express consent because plaintiff had provided his number on the credit application, and never expressed an indication that he wanted to revoke that consent.  The court also rejected the FCRA claim, finding that defendant had obtained the credit report for a permissible purpose when periodically checking the credit report as part of an account review, and that plaintiff sustained no actual damages when the report was not viewable by anyone other than defendant and plaintiff’s credit score was not affected.

In Welch v. Credit Bureau Collection Services, plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendants violated the FDCPA by filing state court collection complaints contending that the assignments of the debts to the plaintiff and the class in the collection cases were invalid.  Plaintiff moved to certify the class.  Upon review, the district court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding that an individual inquiry inappropriate for class action status was required to determine if each assignment was valid.

In Wade v. Bonneville Billing, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by making numerous false statements to plaintiff about the payment obligations after a judgment was obtained on the underlying debt, including a promise to provide plaintiff with a list of the debts underlying the judgment and failing to honor a  settlement agreement.  The court found that the claim related to the creditor list, if made, was not a material statement, and defendant’s failure to send the list to plaintiff was not actionable.  The court also found that defendant did not breach the settlement agreement, because plaintiff failed to make the payments every 2 weeks as agreed on by the parties. 

In Goldenstein v. Repossessors, Inc., plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA when repossessing his vehicle.  Defendants moved for summary judgment,  claiming the FDCPA claim failed because they had a present right to possesses the property as collateral through a secure interest.  The court first found that defendants, which were repossession agencies, were debt collectors under the FDCPA, but that each defendnat did have a right to possession of the vehicle, and the repossession was therefore legal.

In Benjamin v. Wells Fargo, in dismissing plaintiff’s claim under the FCRA, the court affirmed the long-standing principle that the furnisher of information to the credit reporting agencies has a duty to investigate a dispute only if the furnisher first receives notice of the dispute from the credit bureau, and not directly from the consumer.