In Roberson v. LVNV, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA when it filed a state court lawsuit without being licensed as a debt collector in the state. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and the court granted defendant's motion. The court concluded that defendant did not need to hold a collection license because it was a passive debt buyer that relied on licensed agencies or attorneys to do the collection work, including making phone calls and sending dunning letters. The court found that defendant's credit reporting of the purchased accounts was insufficient collection activity to require a license.
In Austin v. Frederick J. Hanna, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA while attempting to collect post-judgment interest on a domesticated judgment through a second wage garnishment after the underlying debt was satisfied with a first wage garnishment. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the second garnishment to collect the post-judgment interest was permitted by state law. The court denied the motion, finding that any delay in collecting the post judgment interest was not caused by plaintiff as was required to have state law authorize the second wage garnishment.
In Langan v. USAA, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation after he disputed the debts. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that it had no duty to investigate any dispute. The court granted the motion, concluding that defendant had no duty of investigation because it was never provided notice of the dispute from a credit reporting agency. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected plaintiff's claim that his dispute of the reporting directly with the furnisher was a sufficient basis to assert that defendant had a duty to investigate.
► Back to News & Resources
