In Rhodes v. Olson Associates, plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendant's voice mail messages failed to meaningfully disclose the caller's identity and failed to state the call was from a debt collector. On cross motions for summary judgment, the court rejected defendant's argument that the voice mails were not communications under the FDCPA, and that there was no need to state the call was from a debt collector when plaintiff had prior conversations and knew that the caller was a debt collector. The court then entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, and granted the motion for class certification because the deficient message was a scripted text used when leaving voice mails.
In Starks v. Mages & Price, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to honor a bankruptcy stay. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no collection activity undertaken in violation of the FDCPA, as separate from the bankruptcy stay. The court entered judgment in defendant's favor, finding that defendant's failure to terminate a garnishment started before the bankruptcy filing may have violated the bankruptcy stay but did not violate the FDCPA. In sum, the court found that simply violating a stay in bankruptcy will not be a violation of the FDCPA unless there is some collection activity undertaken that independently violated the FDCPA.
► Back to News & Resources
