In Glazewski v. CKB, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by filing a collection lawsuit outside the venue where the debtor resided, in violation of the FDCPA. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the FDCPA claim was time-barred when the collection lawsuit was filed more than one year prior to plaintiff bringing the FDCPA claim. The collection lawsuit was filed three years earlier, and dismissed after a payment plan was negotiated with the debtor. After the debtor failed to make the payments, defendant sought to reinstate the case. The court denied the motion, finding that defendant had brought a new “legal action” when the defendant refiled the original lawsuit in an effort to reinstate the case.
In Graf v. Pinnacle, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA in various ways, and defendant filed a counter claim seeking to collect the underlying debt. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the counter claim, arguing that there was no federal court jurisdiction. The court agreed, finding that the only basis to assert federal jurisdiction would be under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, but the court declined to exercise that jurisdiction as the collection claim was not considered a compulsory counterclaim.
In Sojka v. DirectBuy, plaintiff filed putative class action alleging that defendant violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages and telephone calls to her cell phone with an autodialer. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the text message was not covered by the TCPA, and because plaintiff failed to plausibly allege the texts and calls were sent by an ATDS. The court denied the motion, find that text messages are “calls” under the TCPA, and that plaintiff’s allegations that described the various voice mails, including a recorded message as opposed to a live speaker, was sufficient detail to state a claim that an ATDS was used to make the calls.
► Back to News & Resources
