Legal News

Debt Collection

[06/08] Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, a Law Corporation
In an action against a debt-collection law firm, alleging defendant's debt collection letter did not comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. section 1692 et seq., or its state equivalent, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1788 et seq., namely by impermissibly requiring her to dispute her debt in writing and, as a result, misrepresenting her rights to dispute her debt, the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where a validation notice violates section1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA only where it expressly requires a consumer to dispute her debt in writing, as opposed to implicitly requiring written disputes.

[03/08] Lorenzo Cruz v. International Collection Corp.
In a suit alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA): 1) the district court's grant of summary judgment against a collection agency is affirmed, where it sent letters to the plaintiff representing it was entitled to collect interest and fees when governing Nevada law did not permit it to collect interest and fees; 2) the district court's grant of summary judgment against the agency's sole owner, officer, and director is affirmed, where he qualified as a debt collector under the FDCPA and signed one of the false letters; and 3) the defendants' appeal with respect to three postjudgment orders is dismissed for lack of a timely notice of appeal.

[01/18] Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
In a damages action brought in federal district court, alleging that the respondent, seeking to collect a debt, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by repeatedly using an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial voice to call the plaintiff’s cellular phone without his consent, the dismissal of the complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction is reversed, as the claim arose under federal law, and the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts does not deprive the US district courts of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1331.

[09/27] L.K. v. Golightly
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's tort action arising out of a dispute over child support arrears, judgment is affirmed where the exclusive remedy available for review of a decision by the director of Child Support Services Department under Family Code section 17803 is a Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 petition for writ review.

[09/26] Grayson Services, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's action for failure to comply with the Enforcement of Judgments Law (EJL), judgment is reversed where defendant-bank, chartered as a national association, is a "person" as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 680.280 and, accordingly, is subject to the duties and liabilities imposed on "third persons" by sections 701.010, 701.020, and 701.030 of the EJL.

[09/23] Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court and an award of statutory damages under the under both the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code section 1788 et seq., judgment is affirmed where the court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs because defendant's letters to plaintiffs constituted false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of debts, and where the Rosenthal Act permits class actions while permitting class-plaintiffs to recover statutory damages under both the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act does not violate the FDCPA.

[09/22] Zimmermann v. Epstein Becker and Green, P.C.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs' constructive trust and federal Credit Repair Organizations Act claims, judgment is affirmed where plaintiffs' were seeking "class-based relief" but had declined to seek Rule 23 class-certification.

[09/15] Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Walsh
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court freezing relief-defendant's assets, judgment is reversed where the court erred in its legal assumptions concerning state law because under New York law, the proceeds of fraud can constitute marital property, and when part or all of the marital estate consists of the proceeds of fraud, that fact alone does not, as a matter of law, preclude a determination that a spouse paid fair consideration according to the terms of Section 272 of New York's Debtor and Creditor Law.

[08/30] Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.
In an appeal of a district court judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act (UDCPA) complaint for failure to state a claim and limiting the total Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) recovery to $1000, judgment is reversed where court erred in: 1) dismissing UDCPA claim; 2) requiring evidence of detrimental reliance to support actual damages and limiting statutory damages for defendant's multiple violations of the FCBA to a single recovery; and 3) denying any award of attorneys' fees related to plaintiffs' successful FCBA claim.

[08/19] McCoy v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA
In a class-action complaint alleging defendant's violation of the notice requirements of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. sections 1601-1615, judgment of the district court dismissing TILA claims is affirmed upon remand from the Supreme Court, and where the district court properly foreclosed defendant's remaining state claims since Delaware law permits defendant-bank to raise interest rates in the event of default, if it so chooses, by an amount determined in its discretion up to the maximum rate permitted by the cardmember agreement.

[08/01] Aguayo v. U.S. Bank
In a consumer action involving the scope of California’s Rees-Levering Act, judgment of the district court dismissing action as preempted is reversed where because the sections of the Ree-Levering Act at issue are directed toward debt collection, they are not preempted by the National Bank Act.

[07/28] Simmsparris v. Countrywide Financial Corp.
In an action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. sections 1681–1681x, to recover for the reporting of allegedly false information about plaintiff's mortgage repayments, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to present her claim as required by the Act.

[06/23] HSBC Bank USA v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust
In a bankruptcy dispute concerning whether a senior debtor is entitled to post-petition interest, judgment of the district court affirming bankruptcy court's finding that junior indentures did not intend to permit the holders of senior debt to receive post-petition interest prior to payment on the junior debt is affirmed where court: 1) applied correct law; 2) properly analyzed the evidence; and 3) properly found competent extrinsic evidence supporting the parties' intent.

[06/21] Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay
In a dispute involving defendant's debt-collection practices, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where debt-collection letters received from defendant-law office were deceptive under the FDCPA.

[06/17] Brown v. Mortensen
In a dispute concerning the available remedies under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. section 1320d et seq., and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. section 1681 et seq., judgment of the court of appeals is reversed because: 1) the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. section 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state law claims only insofar as they arise out of a requirement or prohibition with respect to the specific furnisher duties regulated by section 1681s-2; and 2) claims, as pleaded, do not involve the same subject matter as section 1681s-2 and thus are not preempted.

[06/10] Goldman v. Capital City Mortgage Corporation
In an action by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee to prevent the transfer of debtor's property to defendant, 11 U.S.C. section 550(b), judgment of the district court is affirmed where defendant failed to show that it was a transferee that takes for value, in good faith, and without knowledge of the voidability of the transfer.

[06/08] US v. Witham
In a dispute involving whether the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. section 3001-3308, may be used to enforce an order of restitution to a private-party victim of a crime, judgment of the district court is reversed where the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 authorizes the United States to invoke FDCPA procedures to enforce all restitution orders, including those in favor of private-party victims.

[06/08] US v. Witham
In a dispute involving whether the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. section 3001-3308, may be used to enforce an order of restitution to a private-party victim of a crime, judgment of the district court is reversed where the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 authorizes the United States to invoke FDCPA procedures to enforce all restitution orders, including those in favor of private-party victims.

[06/03] Kono v. Meeker
In a dispute involving the scope of Code Civ. Pro. section 704.060(a), judgment of the trial court denying an exemption to a levy of execution is affirmed, where inventory items sold by defendants' retail antiques business are not tools of defendants' trade such that they are exempted from a levy.

[05/20] Horvath v. Bank of New York, N.A.
In a dispute arising out of the foreclosure of a home used to secure a loan, judgment of the district court dismissing action to redeem is affirmed where defendant-assignee properly assumed the right to foreclose on property.

[05/13] Ilshin Inv. Co., Ltd. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.
In an action for breach of contract, judgment of the trial court is reversed with respect the amount of contract damages, lost profits, and attorney fees, and affirmed with respect to ruling on the applicable statute of limitations, an order striking punitive damages, refusing to enter judgment in favor of plainttif's conversion claim, and the imposition of a two-year limitation on the period for which plaintiff could recover damages for defendant's excessive recoupment of distribution costs.

Back to Main Menu