Articles Posted in US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

by
A voicemail can, and will, be considered a communication under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692, if the voicemail reveals that the call was from a debt collection company and provides instructions and information to return the call. Meaningful disclosure is provided as long as the caller reveals the nature of the debt collection company's business, which can be satisfied by disclosing that the call is on behalf of a debt collection company, and the name of the debt collection company. In this case, the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against Credit Control, alleging that Credit Control violated the FDCPA not only by failing to provide the required disclosures for initial communications with consumers, but also by failing to provide meaningful disclosure. View "Hart v. Credit Control, LLC" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that TransUnion willfully violated a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b), 1681n, which requires that a consumer reporting agency "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates." The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to allege a plausible claim for relief. The court held that it was was not objectively unreasonable for TransUnion to interpret section 1681e(b) to permit it to report an account for which a consumer, like plaintiff in this case, was an authorized user. View "Pedro v. Transunion LLC" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed suit against SPS for damages under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to SPS, holding that SPS successfully invoked section 3500.21(e)(1) by directing borrowers to mail qualified written requests (QWRs) to a particular office, even though it used that office for other purposes as well. Because plaintiff failed to address his QWR to SPS's designated address for QWR receipt, SPS had no duty to respond to it. View "Bivens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed suit against SPS for damages under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to SPS, holding that SPS successfully invoked section 3500.21(e)(1) by directing borrowers to mail qualified written requests (QWRs) to a particular office, even though it used that office for other purposes as well. Because plaintiff failed to address his QWR to SPS's designated address for QWR receipt, SPS had no duty to respond to it. View "Bivens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227 et seq., permits a consumer to partially revoke her consent to be called by means of an automatic telephone dialing system. The Eleventh Circuit thought it logical that a consumer's power under the TCPA to completely withdraw consent and thereby stop all future automated calls encompasses the power to partially withdraw consent and stop calls during certain times. In this case, the court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff partially revoked her consent to be called in "the morning" and "during the workday" on the October 13 phone call with a Comenity employee. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank" on Justia Law

by
At issue was whether an order form faxed to a doctor by a company that supplies a medical product purchased by that doctor's patient constitutes an "unsolicited advertisement" within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(5). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, agreeing with the district court that faxes were not "unsolicited advertisements." The court held that the faxes in this case did not promote the sale of Arriva products and thus they were not unsolicited advertisements. In this case, each fax related to a specific order already placed by a patient of the clinic and requested only that the doctor of the patient fill out an order form to facilitate a purchase made by the patient. View "The Florence Endocrine Clinic v. Arriva Medical" on Justia Law