Amicus Briefs Filed in the U.S. Supreme Court
Case and Court Issue at Stake Status
LVNV Funding,
LLC, et al. v.
Crawford (S.Ct.)
ACA supported a request for the court to hear a case relating to whether a debt collector or debt
buyer violates the FDCPA’s prohibition against using false, deceptive and misleading means in
connection with the collection of a debt by filing a proof of claim on a stale debt in a bankruptcy
case so that it can be administered by the bankruptcy court as part of the bankruptcy estate.
Closed in 2015. U.S.
Supreme Court denied
the request.
Mutual First Federal
Credit Union, et al.
v. Charvat (S.Ct.)
ACA supported a request for the court to hear a case relating to Article III standing to sue for
violations of federal statute when the plaintiff suffers no economic loss or other harm but seeks
statutory damages for an alleged violation.
Closed in 2014. U.S.
Supreme Court denied
the request.
Spokeo Inc. v. Robins
(S.Ct.)
ACA supported a request for the court to hear a case relating to Article III standing to sue for
violations of federal statute when the plaintiff suffers no economic loss or other harm, but seeks
statutory damages for an alleged violation.
Ongoing.
Case and Court Issue at Stake Status
Baird v. Sabre, Inc.,
et al. (9th Cir.)
ACA supported a district court’s decision that “prior express
consent” under the TCPA is evidenced by the voluntary provision of
a cellphone number to a company.
Ongoing. Briefing is complete.
Balschmiter v. TD
Auto Finance LLC
(7th Cir.)
ACA supported a district court’s decision that a debt collector does
not violate the TCPA by making automated collection calls to
noncustomers when they consented to receive such calls.
Ongoing. 7th Circuit denied the consumer’s petition
for leave to appeal the district court’s denial of class
certification. 7th Circuit noted that “[t]he motions
to file the amicus briefs . . . were considered by
the panel.” 7th Circuit left the door open for the
consumer to challenge on appeal the issues in the
case after the district court makes a final decision.
Buchanan v.
Northland Group,
Inc. (6th Cir.)
ACA supported a district court’s decision that a debt collector does
not mislead a consumer and, therefore, does not violate the FDCPA
by making a settlement offer to collect debt without disclosing that
the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit has expired.
Ongoing. 6th Circuit reversed the district court in
a 2-1 decision, holding that an offer to settle a stale
debt may misleadingly imply a threat of litigation
in violation of the FDCPA. 6th Circuit remanded
the case back to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan for further proceedings
consistent with its decision.
Dominguez v. Yahoo!,
Inc. (3rd Cir.)
ACA supported a district court’s decision that a text messaging
system is not an ATDS within the meaning of the TCPA.
Ongoing. 3rd Circuit heard oral argument on Nov.
21, 2014.
Gulf Coast Collection
Bureau, Inc. v. Mais
(11th Cir.)
ACA supported an appeal of a district court’s refusal to apply the
FCC’s interpretation of the term “prior express consent” in the
TCPA.
Closed in 2014. 11th Circuit unanimously overturned
the district court’s decision in the landmark TCPA case
in favor of the credit and collection industry.
Kubler Corporation
d/b/a Alternative
Recovery Mgmt v.
Diaz (9th Cir.)
ACA supported an appeal of a district court’s decision that
California law does not permit a creditor without a contractual
interest provision to claim and collect interest prior to a court
awarding pre-judgment interest.
9th Circuit heard oral argument on April 7, 2015.
Stalley v. ADS
Alliance Data
Systems, Inc. (11th
Cir.)
ACA supported a district court’s decision that the Florida Security of
Communications Act’s business extension exception applies to calls
that are recorded without consumer consent pursuant to an account
servicer’s company policy in the ordinary course of business and
denying class certification.
Closed in 2015. 11th Circuit unanimously ruled that
no violation of the FSCA occurred when an account
servicer automatically recorded outgoing calls to a
consumer without the consumer’s consent.
Van Patten v. Vertical
Fitness Group, LLC
and Advecor, Inc.
(9th Cir.)
ACA supported a district court’s decision affirming the FCC’s rule of
what constitutes “prior express consent” under the TCPA, and finding
that the consumer provided prior express consent to receive auto-dialed text messages by voluntarily providing his cell phone number to
the creditor.
Ongoing.
Amicus Briefs Filed in the Federal Courts of Appeals
Industry Advancement Program
Judicial Advocacy Efforts Docket Overview (as of April 2015)
