Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

The district court dismissed a pro se debtor's claims against creditors, a collection firm, and credit reporting agencies, holding that expiration of the limitations period on the original debt did not prohibit assignment of or attempt to collect the debt, which had not been extinguished by bankruptcy. The Third Circuit affirmed. Although the debt is unenforceable under state law, it was not extinguished; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, does not prohibit attempts to obtain voluntary payment. Communications did not include any threat to litigate and did not amount to fraud. Nor did the collection agency violate the Act by obtaining a credit report or violate RICO by any of its actions.

The district court dismissed class actions filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b), which provides a private right of action against senders of unsolicited faxes, for lack of diversity jurisdiction. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, first noting its 1998 decision that claims under the TCPA do not qualify for federal question jurisdiction. Congress did not intend to totally strip federal courts of jurisdiction over TCPA claims, in favor of exclusive state court jurisdiction. Absent such intent, diversity jurisdiction is presumed to exist, regardless of the basis of the claim. Because the court may have diversity jurisdiction over individual TCPA claims, it must allow adequate discovery to determine whether the case meets the requirements for class certification under Rule 23.

Plaintiff sued defendants, General Mills, Inc. and wholly-owned subsidiary Yoplait, USA, Inc., for allegedly violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") and for breach of an express warranty by making false and misleading claims about the digestive health benefits of YoPlus yogurt. At issue is whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and the FDUTPA by granting class certification and by defining the class as "all persons who purchased YoPlus in the State of Florida to obtain its claimed digestive health benefit" since such a definition requires individualized fact-finding. The court held that the class as certified is not consistent with the analysis of the law and therefore, the order certifying the class is vacated and remanded.

Plaintiffs sued defendant, Clearwire US LLC, alleging that defendant's early termination fee ("ETF")constituted an unlawful penalty and that the provisions in defendant's service agreement permitted defendant to charge customers an ETF if service was terminated before the end of the fixed contract term. At issue was whether the fees that an internet and telephone service provider charged to customers who cancel service before the expiration of a fixed-term contract were alternative performance provisions or liquidated damages. The court held that the answer to this issue was unclear and therefore certified this question to the Washington Supreme Court.