Blogs | Litigation and Commercial Law

Brief Executive Summary

In Woods v. LVNV Funding, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals clarified two standards for FDCPA claims in identity theft cases. First, the court somewhat lowered the required showing to prove that a debt is a “consumer debt” at the summary judgment phase, noting that the FDCPA does not “require absolute certainty on this point.” Second, the court heightened the standard that debtors must meet in alleging false or misleading statements in identity theft cases, explaining that “literal falsity is not the standard under” the FDCPA, and, where a report is based on an identity mismatch that a debtor can easily determine is not his own, there is no liability.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion vacating an over $4.3 million fee award to class counsel.  Fessler v. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., 23 F.4th 408 (5th Cir. 2022).  The opinion provides defendants with additional support to limit fee awards in class cases where plaintiffs obtain substantially less relief than initially sought.

In connection with large public works projects, negotiating voluntary acquisitions with each landowner is generally the most efficient and preferable method to secure the property rights necessary to complete the project.  However, although most property interests are acquired voluntarily, initiating condemnation proceedings against select landowners is oftentimes necessary to ensure the timely completion of many public utility projects.  To that end, below are some top tips for handling large acquisition projects so as to minimize the need for condemnation:

As part of the flurry of its end-of-term opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ____ (2021) confirming that plaintiffs who have suffered no concrete harm have no standing to sue in federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.  As Justice Kavanaugh succinctly put it in writing for the five justice majority, “No concrete harm, no standing.”

For any attorney, whether new or seasoned, this can be a terrifying possibility. Privilege waivers can happen at any time and can have devastating consequences for your client’s case. This possibility is made even more precarious when one considers that jurisdictions have varying guidelines when it comes to what constitutes a waiver.

The Eleventh Circuit in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. issued an opinion yesterday that confronted an issue of first impression, namely, whether a debt collector can use a third party vendor to send collection letters without violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  The facts were simple.  The defendant/debt collector used a third party letter vendor to send an initial “dunning” letter to the plaintiff/consumer.  In doing so, the defendant provided the vendor with the plaintiff’s name, his outstanding balance, the fact that his debt resulted from his son’s medical treatment, and his son’s name.  The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendant violated the FDCPA by disclosing his personal information to the third-party vendor.

In the recent Third Circuit opinion rendered in Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C., the plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that Patenaude & Felix violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by sending her a single collection letter. The letter advised the plaintiff that her debt had been assigned to the firm and stated: “If you wish to eliminate further collection action, please contact us at 800-832-7675 ext. 8500.”  The letter then went on to advise the plaintiff of her validation rights under §1692g.  Resolution of the alleged class action claims required the Third Circuit to decide whether the inclusion of the single sentence inviting a call would confuse the least sophisticated consumer.

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled that a large home improvement retailer cannot claim a sales tax offset based on uncollectible debts from purchases made on its private label credit card, in the case Menard, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, case number A20-0241. The home improvement retailer, attempted to offset its sales tax liability pursuant to Minnesota Statues § 297A.81, subd. 1 that allows a taxpayer to offset against its current sales tax liability taxes “previously paid as a result of any transaction the consideration for which became a debt owed to the taxpayer that became uncollectible during the reporting period.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently considered eliminating strict liability for one category of claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA): claims asserting that a debt collector brought or threatened to bring legal action to collect a time-barred debt. The proposed revision to Regulation F would have required consumers to show that a debt collector knew or should have known the debt was outside the statute of limitations. Advocates for the change argued that strict liability was inappropriate because a debt collector can reach the wrong conclusion about a state’s application of the statute of limitations even after a thorough investigation and a consumer can raise the issue as an affirmative defense if he/she disagrees with the collector’s conclusion.  Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F), 86 FR 5766-01 (Jan. 19, 2021).

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) was enacted in 1977 to eliminate abusive debt collection practices.  15 U.S.C. § 1692(e).  To further that goal, section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using false, deceptive, and misleading representations; section 1692f prohibits a debt collector from using unfair or unconscionable means; and, section 1692g requires a debt collector to provide certain information (the amount of the debt, name of creditor, and explanation of right to dispute a debt) to a consumer.