In re Hammond, plaintiff filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court alleging that defendant violated the court's bankruptcy discharge order and the TCPA by attempting to collect a debt that had been scheduled in plaintiff's bankruptcy. Defendant called plaintiff 143 times after the discharge. After trial, the court concluded that defendant violated state law, the discharge order and the TCPA by calling his cell phone with a dialer to collect a discharged debt, and awarded plaintiff more than $145,000 in statutory damages and attorney fees.
In Integral Resources v. Hartford Insurance Co, plaintiff had been sued in an underlying putative class action alleging that Integral had violated the TCPA by placing dialer calls to her cell phone without consent. After Hartford denied coverage, plaintiff filed a declaratory action seeking coverage. The court granted Hartford's motion for summary judgment, finding that Hartford had no duty to defend or settle the TCPA class action, which was excluded from coverage because no bodily injury was alleged in the class action suit.
In Aleksic v. Clarity Services, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's FCRA claim. Defendant had pulled plaintiff's credit report, and distributed copies of the report to various high interest lenders. Plaintiff had no prior relationship with either defendant or any of the recipients of the credit report. In denying defendant's motion to dismiss, the court found that defendant knew or should know there was no permissible purpose for obtaining the credit report because the lenders were unlicensed and under federal investigation.
In Norcom v. Lease Financing Group, plaintiff alleged that defendants violated the FCRA by accessing her personal credit report when attempting to collect a business debt. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was a permissible purpose to obtain the credit report, because plaintiff was a guarantor of the business debt, and defendant was attempting to collect the debt. The court agreed with defendant, finding that collecting from plaintiff the individual was permitted, which rendered the pulling of the credit report permissible under the FCRA.
In Nicholson v. Forster & Garbus, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, and dismissed plaintiff's putative class action brought under the FDCPA. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the collector's statement that the call was "on behalf of Forster & Garbus" falsely implied that the call was from a lawyer. In affirming judgment in favor of defendant, the appellate court concluded that the statement was true because the caller was an agent of Forster & Garbus, and was not misleading or deceptive, even though the collector offered to "settle this account", because the least sophisticated consumer would know the call was not from a lawyer.
In Desir v. Greenspoon Marder, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by including a deceptive validation notice in a state court foreclosure suit. The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the validation notice improperly required a written dispute to avoid the assumption that the debt was valid.
In Baham v. Association of Apartment Owners, the court dismissed plaintiff's FDCPA claim, finding that defendant was not regularly engaged in attempting to collect debts on behalf of others, and therefore was not subject to the FDCPA.
In Perry v. AS Astra Recovery Services, defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay action, after plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendant violated the FDCPA while attempting to collect a loan taken out with SpeedyCash. The court concluded that a valid arbitration agreement existed and was enforceable, and therefore compelled plaintiff to proceed with arbitration to resolve the dispute.► Back to News & Resources