by
D.C. Randall, Jr., the dismissal of his operative second amended complaint against Ditech Financial, LLC (Ditech) after the trial court sustained Ditech's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. Randall contended the court erred in its ruling as to his causes of action for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and for violation of the state unfair competition law (UCL) because these causes of action stated or can be amended to state viable claims. The Court of Appeal concluded the complaint stated a claim under section 1692f(1) of the FDCPA and could be amended to state a claim under section 1692f(6). Consequently, the complaint could also be amended to state a claim under the UCL. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court and remanded the matter with directions to conduct further proceedings. View "Randall v. Ditech Financial, LLC" on Justia Law

by
Lujan had a Chase credit card account, governed by an agreement with a provision stating “federal law and the law of Delaware” govern the agreement and a provision for attorney’s fees. When Lujan’s account had an unpaid balance in 2007, Chase assigned its claim to interim assignees. In 2011, PCC filed suit, alleging a debt of $8,831.90. PCC Vice President Shields verified the complaint. Lujan cross-complained against PCC, Shields, and interim assignees seeking damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S. C. 1692, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices. The court granted Lujan summary judgment as to PCC, applying Delaware’s three-year statute of limitations. On the cross-complaint, the court granted the other defendants summary judgment, finding that none met the statutory definition of a debt collector. The judgment is silent om statutory damages, leaving Lujan with only “attorney fees and costs" as provided by statute. The court awarded Lujan $140,550.51 in fees against PCC but denied the other defendants fees because the cross-complaint was not an action “on a contract” under Civil Code 1717. The appeals court affirmed Lujan’s summary judgment against PCC, Lujan’s award of attorney’s fees, and the interim assignees’ summary judgment and denial of fees. The court reversed summary judgment in favor of Shields and PCC’s attorney. View "Professional Collection Consultants v. Lujan" on Justia Law

by
The day Krieger fell victim to a credit card scam and discovered a fraudulent $657 charge on his bill, he contacted his card issuer, Bank of America (BANA), and was told that the charge would be removed and that, pending “additional information,” BANA considered the matter resolved. Krieger’s next bill reflected a $657 credit. Over a month later Krieger learned that BANA was rebilling him for the charge. He disputed it again, in writing. After BANA replied that nothing would be done, he paid his monthly statement and then filed suit, citing the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), 15 U.S.C. 1666, which requires a creditor to take certain steps to correct billing errors, and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601, which limits a credit cardholder’s liability for the unauthorized use of a credit card to $50. The Third Circuit reversed dismissal by the district court, first rejecting a claim that Krieger’s complaint was untimely. Only when BANA decided to reinstate the charge did the FCBA again become relevant, so that the 60-day period began to run. A cardholder incurs “liability” for an allegedly unauthorized charge when an issuer, having reason to know the charge may be unauthorized, bills or rebills the cardholder for that charge; the issuer must then comply with the requirements of section 1643, and when a cardholder alleges those requirements were violated, those allegations may state a claim under TILA section 1640. View "Krieger v. Bank of America NA" on Justia Law

by
Rotkiske accumulated credit card debt in 2003-2005, which his bank referred to Klemm for collection. Klemm sued for payment in March 2008 and attempted service at an address where Rotkiske no longer lived but withdrew its suit when it was unable to locate him. Klemm tried again in January 2009, refiling its suit and attempting service at the same address. Unbeknownst to Rotkiske, somebody at that residence accepted service on his behalf. Klemm obtained a default judgment. Rotkiske discovered the judgment when he applied for a mortgage in September 2014. In June 2015, Rotkiske sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 . The district court dismissed the suit as untimely, rejecting Rotkiske’s argument that the Act’s statute of limitations incorporates a discovery rule which “delays the beginning of a limitations period until the plaintiff knew of or should have known of his injury.” The text at issue reads: An action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought . . . within one year from the date on which the violation occurs, section 1692k(d). The Third Circuit affirmed, based on the statutory text. Congress’s explicit choice of an occurrence rule implicitly excludes a discovery rule. View "Rotkiske v. Klemm" on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action filed by seven former participants in online discount membership programs, alleging that Trilegiant conspired with e‐merchant retailers such as Buy.com, Orbitz, and Priceline to enroll the retailers' customers in the membership programs via deceptive post‐transaction marketing and datapass techniques. The court held that prohibitions on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act did not apply in this case because plaintiffs failed to raise a material issue of fact as to whether they consented to enrollment in the membership programs. Therefore, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to that claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of the racketeering claim, holding that plaintiffs could not proceed on a theory of racketeering because they did not identify an actionable fraud. Finally, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment claims, holding that plaintiffs have not shown that they were entitled to a refund of membership fees and Trilegiant was not unjustly enriched by not issuing the refunds. View "Williams v. Affinion Group, LLC" on Justia Law

by
Based on allegedly deceptive pictures on pet food packaging, Wysong alleged false advertising under the Lanham Act, requiring proof that the Defendants made false or misleading statements of fact about their products, which actually deceived or had a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience, and likely influenced the deceived consumers’ purchasing decisions, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the complaint's dismissal. If a plaintiff shows that the defendant’s advertising communicated a “literally false” message to consumers, courts presume that consumers were actually deceived. Wysong claimed the Defendants’ messaging was literally false because the photographs on their packages tell consumers their kibble is made from premium cuts of meat—when it is actually made from the trimmings. A reasonable consumer could understand the Defendants’ packaging as indicating the type of animal from which the food was made but not the precise cut used so that Wysong’s literal-falsity argument fails. A plaintiff can, alternatively, show that the defendant’s messaging was “misleading,” by proving that a “significant portion” of reasonable consumers were actually deceived by the defendant’s messaging, usually by using consumer surveys. Wysong’s complaints do not support a plausible inference that the Defendants’ packaging caused a significant number of reasonable consumers to believe their pet food was made from premium lamb chops, T-bone steaks, and the like. Reasonable consumers know that marketing involves some level of exaggeration. View "Wysong Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs defaulted on credit cards. PRA, an Illinois debt collection agency, bought the accounts for collection. Debtors Legal Clinic sent separate letters on behalf of each plaintiff to PRA, stating “the amount reported is not accurate.” PRA later reported each debt to credit reporting agencies without noting that the debt was “disputed.” Plaintiffs each filed a suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e(8), alleging that PRA communicated their debts to credit reporting agencies without indicating they had disputed the debt. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. PRA’s alleged violation of section 1692e(8) is sufficient to show an injury‐in‐fact; the plaintiffs suffered “a real risk of financial harm caused by an inaccurate credit rating.” The court rejected PRA’s argument that the phrase “the amount reported is not accurate” was ambiguous. Section 1692e(8) does not require the use of the word “dispute.” The “knows or should know” standard of section 1692e(8) “requires no notification by the consumer … and instead, depends solely on the debt collector’s knowledge that a debt is disputed, regardless of how that knowledge is acquired.” The court concluded that PRA’s error was material. View "Bowse v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC" on Justia Law

by
Medical Recovery Services, LLC (“MRS”), appealed a district court decision that affirmed a magistrate court’s dismissal of an MRS complaint. MRS alleged a right to collect on a debt from Yvonne Ugaki-Hicks, who did not respond to the complaint. MRS filed a complaint against Ugaki-Hicks to recover $1,416.63 alleged to be due for medical services provided by SEI Anesthesia. MRS alleged that it was the assignee of the bill. MRS filed an application for entry of default and default judgment. The magistrate court denied the request. MRS appealed to the district court which determined default should have been entered but affirmed the magistrate court’s denial of entry of default judgment. MRS appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. MRS contended the failure of Ugaki-Hicks to appear and the affidavit of counsel provided an uncontradicted record of the debt assigned to MRS. However, MRS failed to include Exhibit A, the alleged proof of debt or the assignment thereof. MRS stated it did not know why Exhibit A was not included in the record, but that it did not matter because there was no original instrument or written contract between SEI Anesthesia and Ugaki-Hicks. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring MRS to provide evidence of the assignment of claim. “m. Whether Exhibit A would have met the standard could not be determined by either the district court or this Court. This Court is left to presume missing evidence supports the lower courts’ findings.” The district court decision was thus affirmed. View "Medical Recovery Svc v. Ugaki-Hicks" on Justia Law

by
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the bank in an action alleging violation of the Homeowners Protection Act. Plaintiffs alleged that the bank failed to make certain required disclosures in connection with their residential mortgage loans. The court held that the statute was clear that these mortgage insurance disclosures were mandated only if lender-paid mortgage insurance was a condition of obtaining a loan. In this case, because no such conditions applied to plaintiffs' loans, nondisclosure was not a violation of the Act. View "Dwoskin v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

by
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified two questions of New Jersey law to the New Jersey Supreme Court arising from two putative class actions brought under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade claimed that on or about April 25, 2013, they purchased furniture from a retail store owned and operated by defendant Select Comfort Corporation. They alleged that Select Comfort’s sales contract included the language prohibited by N.J.A.C. 13:45A-5.3(c). The Spades also alleged the sales contract that Select Comfort provided to them did not include language mandated by N.J.A.C. 13:45A-5.2(a) and N.J.A.C. 13:45A-5.3(a). The Third Circuit asked: (1) whether a violation of the Furniture Delivery Regulations alone constituted a violation of a clearly established right or responsibility of the seller under the TCCWNA and thus provided a basis for relief under the TCCWNA; and (2) whether a consumer who receives a contract that does not comply with the Furniture Delivery Regulations, but has not suffered any adverse consequences from the noncompliance, an “aggrieved consumer” under the TCCWNA? The New Jersey Supreme Court answered the first certified question in the affirmative and the second certified question in the negative. View "Spade v. Select Comfort Corp." on Justia Law