Josh Dickinson (Omaha) and Kersten Holzhueter (Kansas City) recently obtained a victory for a debt buyer in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Barry Stimpson v. Midland Funding, LLC, the plaintiff alleged that a letter seeking to collect on a time-barred debt violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The letter offered a discount to resolve the debt and contained this language to explain that the debt could not be enforced in court: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt and how long a debt can appear on your credit report. Due to the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it or report payment or non-payment of it to a credit bureau.”
The Second Trip to the Colorado Supreme Court
No other state has a provision in its constitution like the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights (“TABOR”). The TABOR measure amended Article X of the state’s constitution and restricts tax revenues and spending at all levels of government. The provision prevents tax increases without voter approval and prohibits state and local government from spending revenues collected under existing tax rates without voter approval if revenues grow faster that the rate of inflation and population growth. Tax revenues in excess of the TABOR limit must be refunded to taxpayers. The impact of the provision has been significant. Since 1992, tax authorities have refunded over $2 billion to the taxpayers.
Affected by a local government just compensation action? Your remedies have now changed significantly. The Supreme Court on June 21, 2019 overturned 35 years of precedent. In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania the Court held that you can now take your federal takings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 directly to federal court without exhausting state court remedies.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA), makes it unlawful for any person, absent the “prior express consent of the called party,” to make non-emergency calls using any Automated Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service. Anyone who violates the TCPA may be liable for “actual monetary loss” or $500 in damages for each violation, whichever is greater.
In a trio of case opinions issued on May 29, 2018, – all written by Chief Justice Nancy Rice who will retire in June – the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against the arguments of insurance companies.
In a recent decision that may affect any company that sells products or services using telemarketers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Jones v. Royal Admin. Servs., Inc. in favor of a product seller, holding the seller was not vicariously liable for calls made by a telemarketer in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because the telemarketer was an independent contractor.
In a new decision that may have important implications for telemarketers and others using automatic dialing systems, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in the case of Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) allows a consumer to partially revoke his or her consent to receive automated telemarketing calls.
Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., (TCPA) to protect consumers from “[u]nrestricted telemarketing, which it determined to be “an intrusive invasion of privacy.” The TCPA prohibits, among other conduct, telephone calls to residential phone lines or cell phones using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party.
Using a telemarketer to market goods or services can be extremely costly to the seller if the telemarketer conducts its business in a manner that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Penalties for violations of the TCPA range from $500 to $1,500 per call. And with call or text campaigns that may reach thousands of recipients, or even millions – the potential liability can be astronomical. It should be no surprise TCPA class action lawsuits are flourishing.
HB 1470, signed into law last week, does away with the “American Rule,” which impacts which party is responsible for attorney fees at the conclusion of a lawsuit. Set to go into effect in November 2017, the new law requires the court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party – paid for by the non-prevailing party.