Justia Consumer Law Opinion SummariesArticles Posted in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A.
Plaintiff filed suit against the Collectors, alleging that the debt collection letter they sent her violated section 1692(g) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692(g), by failing to notify her of the "in writing" requirement. Plaintiff also alleged that omitting the “in writing” requirement violated section 1692e, which prohibits using “false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court joined the Third, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits in holding that a debt collection notice sent to a consumer’s attorney is an “indirect” communication with the consumer; the court rejected the notion that section 1692g gives debt collectors discretion to omit the “in writing” requirement or cure improper notice by claiming waiver; the FDCPA already specifies a remedy for violations of section 1692g and the court will not judicially fashion a waiver remedy for violations of section 1692g when the FDCPA identifies civil liability as the remedy for noncompliance; and the communication alleged in this case states a claim for “false, deceptive, or misleading” behavior under section 1692e where neither the “competent lawyer” nor the “least sophisticated consumer” could be said to have notice of the “in writing” requirement after receiving a letter like the one alleged. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A." on Justia Law
Brown v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Plaintiffs, consumers from California and Texas, filed class actions against Electrolux, the manufacturer of front-loading washing machines, alleging warranty and consumer claims. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the rubber seal on the front door of the machines retains water, allowing mildew to grow, causing stains on clothing, and creating a foul odor. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in assessing predominance and therefore vacated the class certification. On remand, the district court should revisit Electrolux's argument that the consumer claims do not satisfy predominance because plaintiffs cannot prove causation on a classwide basis, and the district court abused its discretion by certifying the warranty claims without first resolving preliminary questions of state law that bear on predominance. The court further concluded that plaintiffs' damages do not necessarily defeat predominance, and Electrolux's defense of misuse does not necessarily defeat predominance. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Brown v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc." on Justia Law
Evanto v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n
Plaintiff filed suit against the assignee of his mortgage after his servicer failed to provide a payoff balance. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1641(e)(1)(A), creates a cause of action against an assignee for a violation that is “apparent on the face of the disclosure statement provided in connection with [a mortgage] transaction pursuant to this subchapter.” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint because the failure to provide a payoff balance is not a violation apparent on the face of the disclosure statement. View "Evanto v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law