Section 1692f - Unfair practices

180 Citing briefs

  1. Baye v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed June 29, 2017

    See McMillan v. Collection Prof’ls Inc., 455 F.3d 754, 756, 763–65 (7th Cir. 2006) (finding letter stating “YOU ARE EITHER HONEST OR DISHONEST YOU CANNOT BE BOTH” unfair); see also Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F.3d 1507, 1517 (9th Cir. 1994) (pursuing writ of garnishment when debtor was current on account could violate § 1692f). Case 2:17-cv-04789-MLCF-JCW Document 10-1 Filed 06/29/17 Page 16 of 17 17 Respectfully submitted, this the 29th day of June, 2017. s/ Mathew W. McDade Matthew W. McDade (LSB No. 32899)

  2. Impellizzeri v. I.C. System, Inc.

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 31, 2017

    All that the Complaint alleges is that Defendant’s website (which is not the same website on the Letter) improperly charges a $3.00 processing fee. Under these same facts (indeed the Complaint and Amended Complaint in Datiz are identical word for word with respect to the processing fee claim), the court in Datiz dismissed plaintiff’s 1692f(1) claim because there was no attempt to collect the processing fee. Simply maintaining a website, which is not even alleged to have been accessed by Plaintiff, does not amount to a violation of the FDCPA.

  3. Hartman v. Medicredit, Inc.

    BRIEF in Opposition re Motion to Dismiss

    Filed December 5, 2016

    63. Medicredit violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8) by using language or a symbol on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by mail as described above. Case 2:15-cv-01596-MRH-MPK Document 46-1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 10 of 12 COUNT II VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 .

  4. Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re: 27 MOTION to Dismiss., 53 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. re; 1692f. Document

    Filed May 24, 2013

    Standing alone, the filing false affidavits in a collection lawsuit violates the FDCPA.5 Therefore, standing alone, why would the 5 Sykes v. Mel Harris & Assocs., LLC, 757 F. Supp. 2d 413, 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“While the filing of a debt collection action alone does not violate the FDCPA, if the complaint was supported by affidavits that contained false or deceptive representations about the status and character of the debt, then the filing of the state action could also be deemed ‘unfair or unconscionable’ in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.”); Hasbrouck v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC, 2010 WL 1257885, at * 1-3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2010) (allegation if use of false affidavits in default judgment application state a claim for violations of 1692e and 1692f); Coble v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 824 F. Supp. 2d 568, 572 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“Plaintiffs plausibly allege defendants violated the FDCPA when they applied for default judgments against plaintiffs” with the use of false affidavits of service.)

  5. Scally v. Ditech Financial, Llc

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim * Defendant Ditech Financial LLCs Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

    Filed June 13, 2017

    71. Additionally, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692f(6) of the FDCPA by threatening to take non-judicial action to effect dispossession and disablement when there was no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral since any obligation of Plaintiff upon the account had been discharged. 72.

  6. Beatrice Bell v. Ditech Financial, Llc et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed June 12, 2017

    Because Plaintiff fails to plead the pattern and frequency of the calls to show annoyance, abuse, or harassment, this claim fails. Plaintiff asserts that Ditech “violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f of the FDCPA by using unfair and unconscionable means in connection with the collection of an alleged debt.” Compl

  7. Hanson v. Pro Solutions

    RESPONSE

    Filed January 21, 2014

    Section 17200 is disjunctive in nature, meaning that it is violated if a business practice is unlawful or unfair or deceptive. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999). “A practice is prohibited as ‘unfair’ or ‘deceptive’ even if not ‘unlawful’ and vice versa.” State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court 45 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1102 (1996). Here, Pro Solutions’ conduct is independently actionable under all three prongs. First, it is unlawful because the conduct violated the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f). The unlawfulness of Pro Solutions’ conduct is explained supra. Second, Pro Solutions’ conduct is independently actionable because it is unfair.

  8. Wilson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Llc

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed April 17, 2017

    “A complaint will be deemed deficient under [Section 1692(f)] if it does not identify any misconduct beyond [that] which plaintiffs assert violate[s] other provisions of the FDCPA.” Shand–Pistilli v. Prof’l Account Srv. Inc., No. 10-1808, 2010 WL 2978029, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 26, 2012). Here, plaintiff alleges that Ocwen violated Section 1692f(1) by “attempting to collect an amount from the

  9. Acik v. I.C. System, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed October 6, 2008

    2. Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f Defendant has violated Sections 1692f and f(1) of the FDCPA. Section 1692f prohibits the use of “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt” and incorporates eight subsections including f(1).

  10. Johnson-Morris v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed February 4, 2016

    By Plaintiff’s own allegations, the transaction fees simply represent the cost of doing business for the consumer who wishes to utilize the convenience of certain payment methods. Under the reasoning elucidated by Flores, such fees are not “incidental to the Case: 1:16-cv-01456 Document #: 9 Filed: 02/04/16 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:88 - 11 - principal obligation” and thus do not fall within the FDCPA’s scope under § 1692f(1). Therefore, Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim cannot survive as a matter of law. D. Plaintiff’s TCPA Claims Should Be Dismissed, Or Alternatively Rejected In Favor Of A More Definite Statement, Because Plaintiff Fails To Plead The Telephone Number To Which The Alleged Calls Were Made. Plaintiff’s failure to plead the telephone number related to her claim of unconsented cell phone calls renders