In Dreher v. Experian, plaintiff sought to bring a class action for alleged violations of the FCRA by Advanta Bank and Cardwoks. Advanta was the creditor of a debt that was falsely opened in plaintiff's name, which was later acquired by Cardworks after Advanta went out of business. Plaintiff alleged that the tradeline indicating that the negative report was from Advanta, not Cardworks violated the FCRA, and sought to certify a class of all people similarly situated. The court granted plaintiff's motion for certification, finding that there was a sufficiently similar relationship between all people that had incorrectly received a credit report incorrectly indicating that the negative report was from Advanta, not Cardworks.
In Midland v. Jackson, Midland had filed a collection lawsuit in state court against Jackson. Jackson filed a counter claim, alleging that Midland's collection activity violated the FDCPA. Midland sought to remove that claim to federal court after it dismissed the underlying collection lawsuit. The federal court refused to accept the removal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff in the state court proceeding (Midland) cannot remove a case to federal court.
In Hall v. MLG, defendant was attempting to collect a promissory note secured by the plaintiff debtor's residence. Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending a validation notice that incorrectly attempted to impose an in writing requirement to a dispute to avoid the presumption of validity of the debt. The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, which argued that it was not collecting a debt but was instead attempting to enforce a security interest. The court disagreed, finding that the attempt to collect a debt underlying the security instrument was an attempt to collect a debt under the FDCPA.
In Brody v. Genpact Services, plaintiff alleged that defendant left a voice mail message that constituted a deceptive means to collect a debt in violation of the FDCPA. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing that the message, which only stated the company name, was not a communication under the FDCPA. The court agreed and concluded that the message, which only disclosed the identity of the debt collector but otherwise contained generic information, was not a communication under the FDCPA because it did not directly or indirectly convey any information regarding the debt. This court distinguished Foti because unlike Foti, the case here did not reference a "personal business matter" or otherwise contain a reference to the debt.
In Smith v. Asset Acceptance, defendant had filed a proof of claim in plaintiff's Chapter 13 bankruptcy case attempting to collect a debt that was otherwise time-barred. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that this conduct violated the FDCPA. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff's exclusive remedy was through the bankruptcy court, and not the FDCPA. The court rejected this argument, finding the debtor was not limited to the bankruptcy remedies of objecting to the proof of claim and could proceed on a claim to recover damages under the FDCPA.► Back to News & Resources