This is a 2023 FDCPA class class complaint dealing with a consumer disputing a debt and asking for verification. When the account was collected by a second agency, the consumer's requests were ignored and a new letter was sent. The complaint was drafted by the Illinois firms of Philipps & Philipps and SMITHMARCO.
This is a 2023 FDCPA complaint that pleads facts to support constitutional Article III standing in federal court. The complaint specifies concrete injury from an invasion of privacy and the time and expense of having his attorney send defendants a letter. The complaint was drafted by the Illinois firm of Philipps & Philipps and the Missouri firm of the Callahan Law Firm.
The complaint asserts causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code §1782 et seq.; the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welf. & Inst. Code §15600, et seq.; the Home Solicitation Sales Act, Civ. Code §1689.5 et seq.; Bus. & Prof. Code §7150 et seq.; and the Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq. against both Appellants and a cause of action for violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civ. Code §1788 et seq.
Maine Attorney Thomas Cox representing the homeowner in a foreclosure case sent discovery to Deutsche Bank National Trust Co, as trustees for a trust holding the consumer's mortgage. The response from the trustee's attorney objected to much of the discovery.
IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s Opposed Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal of the borrower-defense and closed-school provisions of a “Rule” governing student loan discharges, 87 Fed. Reg. 65904 (Nov. 1, 2022), is GRANTED.
These are jury instructions in a 2015 federal case in the Southern District of Florida concerning violations of the federal CROA statute, the Florida credit services organization act, and where the consumer also sought to pierce a corporate veil.
This is a jury instruction in a federal case in the Northern District of California concerning a homeowner's challenge to foreclosure practices, including violations of TILA, RESPA, FDCPA, the California debt collection statute, and breach of fiduciary duty. The instructions include a number of general items of relevance to most consumer litigation and then instructions related to the homeowner's specific legal claims. These instructions are mentioned in a decision favoring the homeowner in Drakeford v. Cap. Benefit, Inc., 2022 WL 2643984 (N.D. Cal.
This is a class action against the City of Cleveland for various discriminatory and abusive practices concerning water pricing, termination of service, and turning water delinquencies into tax liens and tax takings, including claims under the FHA, due process, and state law.
Defendants’ Consolidated Opposition to Motions for Intervention
This class action lawsuit presents a dispute between student loan borrowers and the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) regarding the Department’s process for reviewing and adjudicating borrowers’ applications for the Department to relieve them of their loan repayment obligations based on the alleged misconduct of the schools they attended.