In Hanson v. HSBC Bank, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim and serving a copy of the pleading on the consumer directly, when defendant knew plaintiff was represented by an attorney in the bankruptcy case. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the serving of a pleading directly to the consumer was permitted by the bankruptcy rules and did not violate the FDCPA. The court agreed, finding that the serving of the pleading was not a communication of the type for which the FDCPA was concerned.
In Lofton v. Verizon, plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendant was liable under the TCPA for alleged violations committed by its debt collector vendors when calling cellular numbers obtained from skip traced numbers attempting to reach debtors. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims for calls made by all of defendant's debt collector vendors, and that the claim should be limited to only the vendor that made calls to plaintiff. The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff had standing to assert claims on behalf of a wide class of recipients that received wrong party calls from multiple entities. The court concluded that a class was plausibly alleged when consisting of people that were neither current nor past customers of defendant that received debt collection calls acting on defendant's behalf.
In Enriquez v. Red Rock Financial, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by wrongfully foreclosing on his property and by failing to respond to plaintiff's request for validation. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, because non-judicial foreclosure proceedings are not subject to the FDCPA and because plaintiff's request for validation occurred two years after the initial validation notice had been sent, so that defendant had no obligation to respond.
In Ramsay v. Sawyer Property Management, plaintiff alleged that the defendant attorney violated the FDCPA when stamping a state court order with the mini-Miranda language by confusing her as to whether she needed to appear at the court proceedings. The district court dismissed the claim, and plaintiff appealed. There, the appellate court affirmed, finding that the additional language was incapable of being deceptive or misleading when the entirety of the order made clear that plaintiff needed to attend the scheduled hearing.
In Scheuer v. Jefferson Capital, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending her a collection letter that identified the debt collector as the "current creditor". The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the letter could not have misled the least sophisticated consumer or impaired the debtor's ability to respond to the letter, as the term "creditor" was reasonably understood to mean the entity to whom the debt was owed.
► Back to News & Resources