In O'Byrne v. PRA, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect fees and interest in a collection lawsuit. The district court entered summary judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed arguing that interest was not permitted until a judgment was obtained. The appellate court first concluded that a complaint served directly on a consumer to facilitate debt collection efforts is a communication under and subject to Section 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA. However, the court found the communication did not violate the FDCPA because the credit card agreement allowed interest to be added, so that the interest became part of the past due total balance.
In Hami v. PRA, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by threatening him with litigation and falsely representing that he was currently being sued. Defendant moved for summary judgment, attaching a recording of the challenged call that showed defendant had explained that plaintiff had been sued a year earlier, that "we have a subpoena with you because there was a court case" and that a "summons and complaint" had been filed. The court granted the motion, finding there was no evidence of abuse when defendant did not call too much, did not yell at plaintiff or insult him, call him names, laugh at him or threaten him with physical harm. The use of words like "court case" and "subpoena" were not harassing as a matter of law, as the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the terms caused him to be confused and feeling nervous. In sum, the court found that plaintiff's "feelings about the conversation are not a litmus test for what constitutes harassment. Even if he found the statements confusing, it does not mean PRA violated" the FDCPA.
In Weiner v. LVNV, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by credit reporting his debt after a dispute letter was sent to defendant, without including notice of the dispute. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege either that the underlying obligation was a consumer "debt" under the FDCPA, and the content of the alleged dispute letter sent. Because plaintiff could reasonably be assumed to know the details of the underlying debt, and the content of the letter, plaintiff's failure to describe them in the complaint warranted dismissal.► Back to News & Resources