In Thompson v. CACH, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by filing a wage garnishment summons on plaintiff’s employer when defendant knew, or should have known, that plaintiff was not the judgment debtor. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claim under Sec. 1692e(5), which generally prohibits threatening to take legal actions as a means of scaring debtors into making a payment. The court granted the motion, finding that there was no threat to take legal action; defendant actually undertook the legal action of garnishing plaintiff’s wages.
In Good v. Nationwide Credit, plaintiff alleged that defendant’s letter that stated that the creditor “is required to file a form 1099C with the Internal Revenue Service for any cancelled debt of $600 or more. Please consult your tax advisor concerning any tax questions” was false and deceptive under the FDCPA because it was improperly unqualified and failed to mention the possible application of an exception under the 1099-C regulations. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the statement was accurate and reflected controlling law, and that any technical misstatement was not material. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the statement was not technically true because it failed to state the exceptions that might prevent triggering a duty to issue the 1099-C, and that the potentially misleading statement was material.
In Marks v. Crunch San Diego, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by sending text messages to his cell phone without consent. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the text messages were not sent with an ATDS. The court granted the motion, finding the system did not have a present capacity to store or produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, because the numbers called are imputed by individuals and require human intervention.
► Back to News & Resources
