Szczurek v. Prof’l Mgmt., No. 14-4775, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17245 (3d Cir. September 10, 2015) (In an FDCPA action, debt collector was entitled to judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), because court disagreed with debtor’s interpretation of a sentence in a debt collection letter as misleading and declined to hold debt collector liable for failing to notify consumers of rights above and beyond what was required by the FDCPA).
Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, No. 13-3588, 765 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2014) (The district court erred in granting the debt collector summary judgment on the debtor’s 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8) claim where the disclosure of the account number implicated a core concern of the FDCPA, i.e., invasion of privacy, and thus, its disclosure was not benign).
Seamans v. Temple Univ., No. 12-4298, 744 F.3d 853 (3d Cir. 2013) (In this FCRA action, the grant of summary judgment to the university was vacated; once the borrower’s loan had been repaid, the trade line pertaining to the Loan should have “aged off” his credit report pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(4), because the Loan by that time had been placed for collection more than seven years prior).
Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, No. 12-1846, 709 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2013) (Based on the court’s interpretation of a collection letter from the perspective of the applicable “least sophisticated debtor,” it determined that the substance and the form of the letter overshadowed and contradicted the validation notice, contrary to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. It was deceptive because it could be read to have two or more meanings).
Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC, No. 10-3194, 650 F.3d 993 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 967 (Jan. 23, 2012) (Two debt collection letters from a law firm, acting as a debt collector, were deceptive in violation of the FDCPA because they falsely implied that an attorney was involved in collecting the debt, and the least sophisticated debtor would reasonably believe that an attorney had reviewed the file and determined that legal action was appropriate).
Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., No. 07-3019, 539 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008) (Judgment on the pleadings was improperly entered for debt collector as to consumer’s deceptive practices claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3), (10). Factual dispute existed as to whether least sophisticated consumer would think that collection letter signed “Legal Department” necessarily meant that attorney was involved in writing or sending letter).
Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film Corp., No. 97-1994, 189 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 1869 (March 6, 2000) (State statute banning exclusivity in motion picture distribution after 42 days was preempted by Copyright Act; state cannot control distribution of copyrighted work contrary to statutory exclusive distribution rights).
Counseled client through the purchase of a debt portfolio with a face value of $2.4 billion. Fast-paced transaction with an end-of-the-year deadline.
Successfully forced plaintiff’s counsel to resolve a substantial class action on an individual basis, which dramatically lowered the exposure to the client. Because the nature of the case changed from a class action to a single plaintiff lawsuit the client was only required to pay a nominal settlement.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a leasing company sued as a result of a multiple fatality motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs alleged that the leasing company’s failure to maintain its own insurance policy on the vehicle made it responsible under a state statute requiring such companies to have insurance to pay for the damages caused by the driver of the vehicle. The court agreed with the leasing company and ruled that noncompliance with the statute did not create a private right of action by the Plaintiffs.