Advanced Pleadings Search

This is a federal court complaint and various attachments filed by David Philipps and other attorneys of Philipps and Philipps of Palos Hills and John Steinkamp of Indianapolis, Indiana, on October 13, 2023,  in the Southern District of Indiana alleging FDCPA violations involving demanding a debt not owed (1692e), failure to cease communications and collections (1692c(c)), communicating with a consumer represented by counsel (1692c(a)(2)), and harassment or abuse (692d(2). The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This is a federal court complaint and various attachments filed by David Philipps and other attorneys of Philipps and Philipps of Palos Hills on August 31, 2023,  in the Eastern District of Missouri alleging FDCPA violations involving failure to cease communications and collections (1692c(c)), and communicating with a consumer represented by counsel (1692c(a)(2)). The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This is a federal court complaint and various attachments filed by David Philipps or Palos Hills, Illinois, and Bradform Botes of Birmingham, Alabama on September 22, 2023,  in the Eastern District of Missouri alleging FDCPA violations involving failure to report that a debt is disputed (1692e(8)), and unfair or unconscionable collection actions (1692f).  The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This is a federal court complaint  filed by David Philipps and other attorneys of Philipps and Philipps of Palos Hills on August 9, 2023,  in the Northern  District of Illinois alleging FDCPA violations involving  failure to cease collections of a dispute debt without providing validation (1692g(b)), failure to cease communications and collections (1692c(c)), false, misleading and deceptive statements (1692e),, and harassing or abusive practices (1692d). The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This memorandum by Florida attorney Robert Murphy filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia requests that the case not be dismissed because of an arbitration requirement, but rather that the case be stayed pending arbitration by the American Arbitration Association, and that the court retain jurisdiction. The attorney was concerned that the defendant would not participate in the arbitration or that for other reasons the AAA would dismiss the case based on the defendant's conduct. In that case, the consumer seeks to be able to return to court to

This is a declaration by Florida attorney Robert Murphy filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia concerning various grounds he has witnessed the American Arbitration Association use to refuse to arbitrate a case based on a business's conduct: failing to pay filing fees, failing to register the arbitration agreement, using an arbitration agreement that does not meet the AAA's due process protocols, and the business's conduct in past AAA arbitrations.

This proposed order by Florida attorney Robert Murphy filed in 2023 in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia requests that the case be stayed pending arbitration by the American Arbitration Association, that the court retain jurisdiction in the case, and that the parties be required to participate in the arbitration. The attorney was concerned that the defendant would not participate in the arbitration or that for other reasons the AAA would dismiss the case based on the defendant's conduct.

This letter is a formal demand for damages due to violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq., and various North Carolina laws, including, but not limited to, common law negligence and violations of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices statute (“UDAP”), N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, et seq.

This is an FDCPA second amended complaint filed by M. Stan Herring of Watts and Herring in Birmingham, Alabama, alleging FDCPA violations under 15 USC ss. 1692c(a)(1), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f , 1692f(1), based on abusive phone calls and threats made before 8:00 AM, false threats of garnishment without a court judgment, and engaging in numerous other misrepresentations. The complaint alleges the defendant's liability under respondeat superior and alter ego.

This is an FDCPA case filed by M. Stan Herring of Watts and Herring in Birmingham, Alabama, alleging FDCPA violations under 15 USC 1692c(a)(1), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f , 1692f(1), based on abusive phone calls and threats made before 8:00 AM, false threats of garnishment without a court judgment, and engaging in numerous other misrepresentations. The complaint alleges the defendant's liability under respondeat superior and alter ego.  The verdict is for $1000 statutory damages and $210,000 compensatory damages.

This is an annotated sample first request for production of documents in a case involving Truth in Lending claims. This request is based on discovery materials prepared by consumer law practitioners in three different cases involving mortgage loans and auto finance.. It is intended to be adaptable for both loans and credit sales. In most cases, a simplified first document request should be served as soon as practicable in the case.

This action is brought by Plaintiff for actual damages, statutory damages, and civil penalties against Defendant National Recovery Solutions, LLC, for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices, and requires the communication of specific statutory rights, and the North Carolina Collection Agency Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-70-90 et seq. (“NCCAA”).

Complaint and Demand for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

This is an action under the Administrative Procedure Act for declaratory relief from Gainful Employment (“GE”) regulations of the U.S. Department of Education, 34 C.F.R. Part 668 Subpart Q, as applied to member schools of the American Association of Cosmetology Schools. The GE regulation assesses the outcomes of educational programs based on the ratio of graduates’ educational debt to earnings. Although the Department acknowledges that some graduates of cosmetology programs underreport their incomes, the Department has made no provision for such underreporting in its regulations.

Does the preemption of state usury laws enjoyed by national banks under the National Bank Act extend to non-bank debt buyers where, as here, the national bank retains no interest in or control over the subject accounts, and the national bank and the debt buyer are operationally and legally unrelated entities?

As demonstrated in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and the Administrative Record (“AR”), the FDIC’s rule on the Federal Interest Rate Authority, 85 Fed. Reg. 44,146 (July 22, 2020) (“Final Rule”) represents a reasonable interpretation of 12 U.S.C. § 1831d, and should be upheld under Chevron’s familiar two-step framework. The Final Rule is neither arbitrary or capricious, nor contrary to law, is consistent with the FDIC’s authority, and in compliance with applicable procedural requirements.

States have long used interest-rate caps to prevent predatory lending. In light of the comprehensive federal regulatory regime to which national banks are subject, Congress exempted them from compliance with state rate caps in the National Bank Act (“NBA”). 12 U.S.C. § 85 (allowing national banks to “take, receive, reserve, and charge” interest in excess of state law); see also 12 U.S.C. § 1463(g)(1) (same for federal savings associations).

This is a brief in opposition to a lender’s attempt to strike the homeowner’s defenses and dismiss the homeowner’s UDAP and ECOA counterclaims in a Florida action involving the foreclosure of a reverse mortgage for alleged failure to pay property taxes or insurance. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.