fdcpa

Subscribe to fdcpa

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has scheduled oral argument in the rehearing en banc in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. for February 22, 2022.  After ordering the rehearing en banc in November 2021, the Eleventh Circuit issued a memorandum indicating that for purposes of the rehearing, the Court wanted counsel to focus their briefs on the question: “Does Mr.… Continue Reading

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered rehearing en banc in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc.  Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit issued a memorandum indicating that for purposes of the en banc rehearing, the Court wants counsel to focus their briefs on the question: “Does Mr.… Continue Reading

In a surprising turn of events this morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an order sua sponte to rehear Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. en banc.  The sua sponte order was issued after an Eleventh Circuit judge requested a poll on whether the case should be reheard en banc and a majority of the active judges voted in favor of the rehearing. … Continue Reading

On October 28, 2021, in a 2-1 split panel decision, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its prior opinion in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. (published at 994 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2021)), and substituted a new opinion in its place.  The new opinion is published, meaning it has immediate legal effect and is binding on future Eleventh Circuit judicial panels and district courts within the circuit.… Continue Reading

In two cases in which the plaintiffs alleged that the debt collector defendants violated the FDCPA by sharing information about their debts with third party vendors used to prepare collection letters, an Illinois federal district court rejected the plaintiffs’ attempts to have their cases remanded to state court based on a lack of Article III standing.   … Continue Reading

A Utah federal district court recently ruled in two cases that the Petition Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides immunity to debt collectors from FDCPA claims.  The two cases are Holmes v. Crown Asset Management, LLC and Reyes v. N.A.R. Inc. and Olson Associates, P.C.  Both decisions were issued by Judge Howard C.… Continue Reading

A New York federal district court has dismissed for lack of Article III standing six class action cases alleging that debt collectors violated the FDCPA by sharing data about the plaintiffs’ debts with mailing vendors.  In making these claims, the plaintiffs relied on the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services that a debt collector’s transmittal of debt information to its letter vendor could violate the FDCPA’s limits on third party communications.… Continue Reading

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending the plaintiff a settlement offer that did not disclose that his balance could increase due to interest and fees. 

In Cortez v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, the debt collector sent a collection notice to the plaintiff offering various options for settling his account for less than the full balance owed if he made the payments indicated by the dates specified in the notice.… Continue Reading

On behalf of our client RevSpring, Inc., Ballard Spahr has filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for rehearing en banc filed in the Eleventh Circuit by the defendant in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services.  In that case, a unanimous Eleventh Circuit panel reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, instead ruling that the plaintiff stated a claim by alleging that a debt collector’s transmittal of the plaintiff’s personal information to the vendor it used to generate and send collection letters “constituted a communication ‘in connection with the collection of any debt’ within the meaning of [FDCPA Section 1692c(b)].” … Continue Reading

Last month, in a very troubling decision of first impression, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, instead ruling that the plaintiff stated a claim where the plaintiff alleged that a debt collector’s transmittal of the plaintiff’s personal information to the vendor it used to generate and send collection letters “constituted a communication ‘in connection with the collection of any debt’ within the meaning of [FDCPA Section 1692c(b)].” … Continue Reading