In Buchholz v. Valarity, LLC, plaintiff alleged that defendant called him on his cell phone in violation of the FDCPA and TCPA while attempting to collect a medical debt.  The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.   Defendant alleged that plaintiff provided the cell number being called to the medical provider, and therefore provided consent under the TCPA.  Plaintiff denied providing the number.  The court found that the issue related to the source of the number was a disputed factual issue, and denied both motions.  The court also found that plaintiff's FDCPA claim, in which 233 calls were made over a 5 month period with 3 calls being made on some days, was best resolved by a jury as to whether the volume was harassing, and denied the motions as well.


In Porter v. Collecto, a putative FDCPA class action, the court graned defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction after plaitniff was served with, and rejected, an offer of judgment that provided plaintiff with complete relief for the individual claims, so that there was no longer an active case or controversy.


In Davis v. Hollins Law, plaintiff filed an FDCPA suit claiming that defendant left voice mails on his answering machine that failed to state the call was from a debt collector.  A bench trial was had, and the court concluded that the messages did violate both the FDCPA and state law.  In ruling on damages, plaintiff sought travel expenses for his out of state lawyer to attend the trial.  The court agreed, and awarded neary $2,000 in travel expenses.


In Murphy v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, plaintiff filed suit under the FCRA claiming that defendant did not conduct a reasonable investigation after receipt of notice from the credit reproting agencies that the debt was disputed.  Plaintiff alleged that the debt had been extinguished, and was no longer collectible so that credit reporting without noting that fact was false and inaccurate.  Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied by the court, which concluded that there was a viable claim by reporting misleading information about a debt that could not be subject to a judgment without noting that fact.

Back to News & Resources