In Tourgeman v. Collins Financial, the appellate court reversed the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant in a class action brought for alleged FDCPA violations.  Plaintiff sought to assert claims for alleged violations contained in letters from defendant that allegedly misrepresented the original creditor, despite the admission that plaintiff had not received the letters.  In reversing, the appellate court concluded that plaintiff still had standing because the sending of the allegedly misleading letters constituted a cognizable injury, regardless that the letter was not read by plaintiff, and that plaintiff did have standing.   


In McLaughlin v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, plaintiff alleged that defendant’s collection letter violated the FDCPA by misrepresenting the amount of the debt and including costs and fees that had not been incurred.  Defendant moved to dismiss, and the district court dismissed the claims because plaintiff could not file a lawsuit challenging the itemization of the debt without first disputing the validity of the debt.  The appellate court reversed, finding that a consumer was not required to first dispute a debt under the FDCPA statutory dispute process prior to filing suit when alleging that the amount of the debt was falsely stated in a collection letter.


In Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendant’s letter violated the FDCPA.  The district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that any errors in the letter were not misleading.  The letter stated that, if plaintiff failed to dispute the debt within 30 days, the creditor (and not the debt collector) would assume the debt was valid.  On appeal, the appellate court concluded that the error in the letter was not capable of misleading the least sophisticated consumer, and therefore affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim.


In Baxter v. Brock & Scott, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting to foreclose on plaintiff’s properly.  The district court dismissed the case, concluding that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff was challenging the foreclosure order, which implicated a review of the state court judicial act prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.


In Prince v. LVNV, defendant moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s FDCPA claims.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant had filed a collection lawsuit in bad faith and without the means to prove the validity of the debt, misrepresented the amount of the debt and attempted to collect a debt not authorized by the agreement creating the debt.  The court denied defendant’s motion, finding that defendant had the obligation of proving that the lawsuit was filed in good faith, and that there were factual disputes that could, if believed by a jury, indicate that the suit was filed in bad faith.


In Vitela v. IndyMac, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that plaintiff’s debt was not in default at the time defendant started performing mortgage services on the account and that defendant therefore was not a debt collector subject to the FDCPA.


In Evans v. Corinthian Colleges, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s TCPA claims, arguing that the claim was not alleged with sufficient detail because plaintiff did not allege the specific dates and times of the allegedly unlawful calls to her cell phone.  The district court rejected defendant’s argument, and found that plaintiff plausibly stated a claim that she received unlawful automated calls to her cell phone and without consent.    Inclusion of the date and times of the calls was not necessary. 

Back to News & Resources