Collector - May 2015

Case and Court Issue at Stake Status

Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. (Md.Ct.App.)

ACA supported a lower court’s decision that the rules of evidence do not apply and/or are relaxed for debt-buyer small-claims trials.

Closed in 2014. Court of Appeals in Maryland ruled 5-2 in favor of the credit and collection industry.

Amicus Briefs Filed in the State Courts of Appeals
Case and Court Issue at Stake Status

Ahmedi v.

ChexSystems, Inc., Financial Mgmt. & Assoc. Inc., et al. (D.Ct.Dallas County, TX)

ACA supported the member’s defense of an action brought by a consumer (using a serial filer plaintiff’s attorney whose claims are often deemed frivolous and meritless) falsely alleging FDCPA violations against the member because the member, as a data furnishing debt collector, purportedly failed to conduct a sufficient reinvestigation, failed to verify the accuracy of the credit file data, failed to accurately update the file, and reported inaccurate or unverified data in subsequent reports.

Closed in 2014. The court granted the member’s Motion for Summary Judgment without opinion.

Altman v. J.C.

Christensen & Associates, Inc. (2nd Cir.)

ACA supported a district court’s decision that the FDCPA does not impose a requirement on debt collectors to disclose potential “tax consequences” of settling an account for less than the full amount owed.

Ongoing. Briefing is complete. On Feb. 18, 2015, the case was submitted for determination of appeal.

Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc. v. Lynn

(4th Cir.)

ACA supported an appeal of a district court’s decision that the “call charged” provision of the TCPA applies when the call is exempt from liability under the TCPA pursuant to the TCPA’s “residential line” provision.

Closed in 2014. 4th Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court’s decision in favor of the consumer.

Peak v. Professional Credit Service

(D.Or.)

ACA supported the member’s defense against a consumer’s FDCPA lawsuit alleging that the following voicemail message, when overheard by a third-party, constitutes in impermissible third-party disclosure: “Hi, this is Katie and I have an important message from Professional Credit Service. This is a call from a debt collector. Please call ###-###-####.”

Ongoing.

Riccio v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC (D.N.J.)

ACA supported the member’s defense against a consumer’s class action lawsuit alleging that the member violated the FDCPA by using language and/ or symbols (in this case, a bar code) on envelopes mailed to consumers that reveal information other than the debt collector’s address.

Ongoing.

Shockey v. Credit Management, LP

( D.Colo.)

ACA supported the member’s defense of an action brought by a consumer (using a well-known frequent filer of FDCPA lawsuits in Colorado) falsely alleging FDCPA violations against the member, which the consumer attempted to manufacture by using baiting and phishing techniques provided by the consumer’s attorney in the form of a script.

Closed in 2015. The consumer voluntarily dismissed the case against the member.

Winter v. Credit Management, LP

( D.Colo.)

ACA supported the member’s defense of an action brought by a consumer (using a well-known frequent filer of FDCPA lawsuits in Colorado) falsely alleging FDCPA violations against the member, which the consumer attempted to manufacture by using baiting and phishing techniques provided by the consumer’s attorney in the form of a script.

Closed in 2015. The consumer voluntarily dismissed the case against the member.

Zente v. Credit Management, LP

(5th Cir.)

ACA supported the member’s opposition to Sergei Lemberg’s (a prolific plaintiff’s attorney) appeal of a district court’s order referring him to the Western District of Texas Admissions Committee.