In Etro v. Blitt & Gaines, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by instituting a garnishment action against plaintiff's employer in a judicial district where plaintiff did not live. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it satisfied the FDCPA's venue requirements. The court granted the motion, finding that the garnishment action was targeted to the employer and not the consumer, so that it was not required to be filed where plaintiff resided. Underlying the reasoning of the court was the practical reality that the action needed to be filed where the employer was located because no other court would have had jurisdiction over the employer.
In Spurgeon v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending a collection letter that falsely implied that an attorney had reviewed the account and threatened legal action. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a clear and unambiguous disclaimer that no attorney was involved in sending the letter left no possibility for a consumer to have been mislead about the level of attorney review. The court granted the motion, finding that the letter disclaimed any attorney involvement despite being sent on attorney letter head and the firm's name appearing in the signature block.
In Margulis v. Generation Life Insurance, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's TCPA claim, arguing that plaintiff failed to both plausibly allege an agency relationship between the caller and defendant, and details of the call including her cell number, the number that made the call or specifically identify the caller other than a generic "agent" of defendant. The court granted the motion because plaintiff failed to sufficiently detail a possible agency relationship between defendant and the caller, though the court also found that plaintiff would not be required to plead the specific telephone numbers that were called and from which the call originated.
► Back to News & Resources
