In Izquierdo v. Easy Loans Corp., plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by filing a collection lawsuit when it knew or should have known that the collection of the debt was prohibited by the expiration of the statute of limitations.   Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the limitation period had not run. The court disagreed and found that the cardholder agreement required application of Delaware's three year limitation period, and that the lawsuit was time-barred.


In Todorov v. Easy Loans Corp., plaintiff filed suit pursuant to the FDCPA, alleging that defendant's debt collection efforts were deceptive and harassing.  Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that it was not a debt collector subject to the FDCPA and that plaintiff's request for validation was untimely, and therefore that defendant had no obligation to verify the debt.  The court rejected defendant's argument that it was a creditor and not a debt collector, because plaintiff plausibly alleged that the debt was in default at the time it was purchased by defendant.  The court did dismiss plaintiff's claims under Section 1692g though, finding that the filing of the lawsuit was the initial communication, which did not trigger any validation requirements.


In Beiler v. Fifth Third Bank, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by calling her cell phone with a dialer and without consent.  Defendant brought a counter claim, arguing that plaintiff's claims were settled as part of an earlier lawsuit brought by plaintiff's husband, in which the husband claimed to have received the phone calls.  The court found that the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims brought against plaintiff by defendant were subject to an arbitration provision in the agreement, and ordered the parties to arbitrate the counter claims of the defendant.


In Margaritis v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, the appellate court affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment on plaintiff's FCRA claim.  The court found that there was no private cause of action for plaintiff's claim for reporting false information under the FCRA, and that there was no allegation that plaintiff ever disputed the allegedly incorrect reporting with a credit reporting agency.

Back to News & Resources