News and Resources

In Compressor Engineering v. Manufacturers Financial, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited faxes, and sought to prosecute the case as a class action.  Defendant served plaintiff with an Offer of Judgment, which plaintiff did not accept.  Defendant then moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction as there was no longer a live case or controversy because defendant had offered plaintiff everything to which it was entitled under the TCPA.  Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the offer did not include an award for attorney fees.  The court agreed with defendant, finding the offer did provide full relief and attorney fees were not statutorily available, and that the court lacked jurisdiction.  The case was dismissed.

In Hashw v. Department Stores National Bank, a credit card holder alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by placing automated calls to his cell phone without consent.  Defendant moved to dismiss the claim of a willful violation, arguing that it was not liable under the TCPA because it did not know the calls were being made in violation of the act.  The court denied the motion, concluding that discovery was needed to determine the willfulness issue.

In Quinlan , plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to adequately validate the debt.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the debt was validated properly, and moved to dismiss.  The court granted the motion, finding that defendant properly validated the debt when it confirmed to plaintiff the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt.

In Lloyd v. Midland, defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff's FDCPA and FCRA claims failed as a matter of law.  Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to honor a settlement agreement and obtaining a default judgment against plaintiff for a larger amount then the settlement amount, and the FCRA by reporting the judgment to the credit bureaus.  The court granted the motion as it related to the federal claims.  The FCRA claim was dismissed because there was no evidence that the judgment was reported by defendant, as opposed to picked up by the bureau as a public record.  Moreover, the FDCPA claim was dismissed because it was time-barred, as the court found that plaintiff could have discovered the existence of the credit reporting more than 1 year prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

In Wyant v. Nationstar, plaintiffs alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by continuing to collect their mortgage debt after the account had been settled by falsely representing that the debt was still owed.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that it did not know that the debt had been paid off at the time the allegedly offending letters were sent.  The court denied the motion, finding it irrelevant that defendant was not aware of the violations, and that any application of the bona fide error defense required discovery on the policies of defendant to avoid collecting accounts that had been settled.

In Gardner v. TBO Capital, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by making false and misleading representations while collecting a mortgage debt by attempting to take possession of the property.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that they were entitled to foreclose on the property as the assignee of the security deed.  The court granted defendant's motion, finding that defendant's foreclosure was proper and the assignment of the security interest valid.

In Schueller v. Wells Fargo, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FCRA by reporting misleading, inaccurate and incomplete information to the credit bureaus.  After the district court dismissed the case, plaintiff appealed.  The reporting indicated that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy, but plaintiff argued that the reporting should have also indicated the fact that he had made post-bankruptcy payments.  The appellate court affirmed, finding that the supplemental information requested by plaintiff was not required by the Act, and that the reporting was technically true.