Showing 38 posts in FDCPA.

Rhode Island Federal Court Concludes FDCPA Lawsuit is Barred by the Doctrine of Claim-Splitting

January 18, 2023 by Samuel C. Bodurtha

In Laccinole v. MRS BPO, LLC, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied a frequent pro se plaintiff’s multiple lawsuit attempt at pursuing relief against the same company under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Christopher Laccinole filed three separate lawsuits against the same company arising from fourteen different contacts between February 22, 2022 and May 5, 2022, in which Laccinole claimed the company wrongfully sought collection of a debt he did not owe. According to the decision, Laccinole deliberately pursued three separate actions for different FDCPA violations against the same party to circumvent the FDCPA’s cap on damages at $1,000 per defendant. (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A)) The Court determined that Laccinole was claim-splitting by pursuing three separate lawsuits on additional calls: separate instances of the same course of conduct by one defendant. More ›

Eleventh Circuit Orders En Banc Rehearing of Hunstein Case and Vacates Opinion

November 17, 2021 by David M. Schultz, Justin M. Penn, Barbara Fernandez

Today, Hunstein took another unique—but favorable—turn for the debt collection industry. The Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals issued an order vacating its last opinion in Hunstein vs. Preferred Collection & Management Services, Inc, and ordered the case to be reheard en banc. More ›

House Passes Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act That Would Expand Multiple Consumer Finance Laws

May 18, 2021 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 2547, on a strict party-line vote. Titled "The Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, the bill would amend several consumer finance statutes for the first time in decades and impose new requirements and limitations on debt collectors, among others. Its fate now rests in the U.S. Senate. More ›

CFPB Highlights COVID-19-Fueled Regulatory Risks for Examined Industries in Special Edition of Supervisory Highlights

February 17, 2021 by Dustin C. Alonzo, Dana B. Briganti, Lauren Campisi, Adair L. Kingsmill, Vaishali S. Rao

In its recent Special Edition of Supervisory Highlights on COVID-19 Prioritized Assessments, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) summarized challenges and risks with respect to several industries it had informally examined since the start of the pandemic. Beginning in May 2020, the Bureau rescheduled about half of its planned examinations and instead conducted "prioritized assessments" in response to the pandemic. These assessments included seeking information on how institutions were responding and communicating with consumers, and also examining how institutions were confronting and adapting compliance in response to the pandemic. More ›

Uniformity Achieved: Third Circuit Rules There is No Written Requirement to Dispute Validity of a Debt Under FDCPA

April 2, 2020 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an en banc decision in Riccio v. Sentry Credit, overturning Graziano v. Harrison, after finding that there is no written dispute requirement in Section 1692g(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to the court, this decision ends "a circuit split and restores national uniformity to the meaning of §1692g." Moreover, the decision applies retroactively to any claim still open on the issue, thus closing the chapter on a written requirement for Section 1692g. More ›

Second Circuit Re-Emphasizes that FDCPA Claims Must Allege a Material Representation

December 16, 2019 by Fernando C. Rivera-Maissonet

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently took the opportunity to apply its 2018 holding in Cohen v. Rosicki, which had held that a consumer pursuing a claim for violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a material misrepresentation. Materiality depends on "whether the false statement would frustrate a consumer's ability to intelligently choose his or her response," or if the representation "could mislead the debtor as to the negate and legal status of the underlying debt," or "could impede the consumer's ability to respond to or dispute collection." More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split, Applies Occurrence Rule to FDCPA Statute of Limitations

December 11, 2019 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Earlier this year, this blog reported on the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm to resolve a split in circuits on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) statute of limitations. This week, in an 8:1 opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations in the FDCPA begins to run when the violation occurs, not when the violation is discovered. In doing so, they overturned rulings by the Fourth and Ninth Circuit, which had held the FDCPA's statute of limitations was subject to equitable tolling. More ›

FDCPA Claims Dismissed As a Result of Plaintiff's Bad Faith Bankruptcy Conduct

September 25, 2019 by Samuel C. Bodurtha

In Vedernikov v. Atl. Credit & Fin., Inc., (Vedernikov I), the U.S. District Court of New Jersey granted the defendant Midland Funding's motion to dismiss, which successfully argued the plaintiff should be estopped from bringing FDCPA claims that he failed to disclose during a bankruptcy action from which he had been discharged. After Midland Funding filed its motion to dismiss in Vedernikov I, the same Court also issued an Order to Show Cause and ultimately dismissed Vedernikov v. Oliphant Financial, LLC (Vedernikov II), another matter brought by the same plaintiff. More ›

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Plaintiff Avila’s Challenge to the Safe Harbor She Established in Avila I

June 20, 2019 by Fernando C. Rivera-Maissonet

We previously discussed Avila v. Reliant (Avila II) and U.S. District Court Judge Spatt’s dismissal of a consumer’s attempt to sue on the “safe harbor” language she helped establish in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates (Avila I). As predicted, Avila II was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, the Court did not address Judge Spatt’s reasoning for the dismissal. More ›

Seventh Circuit Awards Legal Costs and Implements a Major Reduction in Plaintiff's Requested Attorneys' Fees in a FCRA and FDCPA Claim

June 10, 2019 by Jennifer W. Weller

In Paz v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, a debtor sued for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Within a month of filing suit, the creditor invoked Rule 68 in making a formal offer to settle, and subsequently made two additional Rule 68 offers of judgment. The debtor never responded to these settlement offers, and later rejected a final offer to settle all claims, costs and attorneys' fees for $25,000. At trial, the debtor prevailed on both of his claims, but because the jury determined he had sustained no actual damages, his total recovery was limited to $1,000 in statutory damages. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives