In Alpert v. Nationstar, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to respond to his request for validation. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the validation request that occurred more than 6 months following the sending of the validation notice imposed no requirement on defendant to respond and validate the debt.
In Lotito v. Recovery Associates, plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending letters that demanded immediate payment which overshadowed the validation notice. The letter stated that the account was "long past due and must be paid at once." In granting defendant's motion to dismiss, the court found that the statement did not overshadow the validation notice because the notice did not demand an immediate payment within a specific time, nor threaten adverse consequences if payment was not made.
In Pickens v. American Credit, plaintiff alleged that defendant called her cell phone attempting to collect a debt owed by an unrelated third party in violation of the TCPA. Defendant moved to stay the case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, because the FCC is currently considering whether to create a "safe harbor" exception for TCPA liability when mistakenly calling wrong parties on a reassigned number. The court granted the motion, finding the stay appropriate to allow the FCC to decide the unsettled issue.
► Back to News & Resources
