In Brown v. Mandarich Law Group, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending a letter directly to him, when defendant knew he was represented by counsel. The case was subsequently settled for $2,000 plus attorney fees by operation of an offer of judgment, and defendant sought to offset the judgment with the amount that defendant had obtained earlier in a judgment against plaintiff in the state court collection case. The court agreed, concluding that defendant’s $1,200 judgment could be used to offset the amount it would pay plaintiff pursuant to the offer of judgment, though the offset would not apply to any award for attorney fees.
In Silva v. Barclays, plaintiff alleged that defendant’s attempts to collect his defaulted credit card debt violated the FDCPA and FCRA. Defendant moved to dismiss, and the court granted the motion. The court found that plaintiff’s allegations that the negative credit reporting done by defendant violated the FCRA because it was inaccurate failed to state a claim because there was no allegation that plaintiff had disputed the accuracy of the reporting with a credit bureau, so that defendant had no duty to investigate the accuracy of the reporting. The court also rejected plaintiff’s FDCPA claim because Barclays was not a debt collector subject to the Act.
In Bank v. Sparks Energy Holdings, plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging violations of the TCPA because defendant placed unsolicited telemarketing calls through an automated dialer. Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that plaintiff’s claims had already been litigated and dismissed in an earlier case, and where therefore barred by res judicata. The court rejected defendant’s argument because the earlier case was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction after the court found the case was mooted by defendant’s service of an offer of judgment offering plaintiff complete relief for his individual claims. Because the prior dismissal was for jurisdictional reasons, and not an adjudication on the merits, res judicata was not applicable, and the case survived.
► Back to News & Resources
