I’m thrilled to announce that Bedard Law Group is the new sponsor for the Compliance Digest. Bedard Law Group, P.C. – Compliance Support – Defense Litigation – Nationwide Complaint Management – Turnkey Speech Analytics. And Our New BLG360 Program – Your Low Monthly Retainer Compliance Solution. Visit www.bedardlawgroup.com, email John H. Bedard, Jr., or call (678) 253-1871.
Every week, AccountsRecovery.net brings you the most important news in the industry. But, with compliance-related articles, context is king. That’s why the brightest and most knowledgable compliance experts are sought to offer their perspectives and insights into the most important news of the day. Read on to hear what the experts have to say this week.
Judge Denies Class Certification Motion in FDCPA Case
A District Court judge in Indiana has denied a plaintiff’s motion to certify a class in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit, ruling that the agreement between the plaintiff and his attorney renders the plaintiff an inadequate representative for the entire class while also criticizing the plaintiff’s attorney “regarding the work that counsel has done to identify and investigate potential claims.” More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM JESSICA KLANDER OF BASSFORD REMELE: This case is a great reminder of how important the class representative’s deposition is in a class action case. A critical (and sometimes overlooked) requirement of class certification is that the class representative must “adequately represent” the class. When preparing for the representative’s deposition it is not only important to focus on the substantive claims and alleged damages, but it also important to focus on whether or not the individual will adequately represent the class. That means asking questions aimed at learning the representative’s understanding of the claims, any unique facts that differ from the rest of the class claims, the representative’s involvement (or lack thereof) in the case, and any arrangements between the attorney and the class representative as to fees and costs.
THE COMPLIANCE DIGEST IS SPONSORED BY:
Judge Grants MTD on Remanded Case Over Lack of Standing
A District Court judge in Ohio has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case because claiming statutory damages is not enough of a concrete injury for the plaintiff to have standing to sue. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM RICK PERR OF KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK: Standing decisions have finally crossed the line to the utterly bizarre. If allegations that attempting to collect a debt that is not owed do not confer standing, then when can FDCPA cases be brought in federal court? The allegations in this case are the quintessential purpose behind the FDCPA’s private cause of action.
As I have written many times, defendant agencies beware wanting your cases decided in state court by judges unfamiliar with the FDCPA and subject to a process that is not as strict and controlled as the federal court docket. Moreover, state court decisions have almost no persuasive value in other states.
These standing decisions are not in the ARM industry’s best interest.
CFPB Denies Request to Modify or Set Aside CID
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has published an order from its former Acting Director denying a request from a petitioner to modify or set aside a Civil Investigative Demand it received but has granted in part a request from the petitioner that part of their petitions and portions of a declaration be treated confidentially. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM JOHN REDDING OF ALSTON & BIRD: In what has become somewhat routine, the CFPB in an administrative order from September and recently made public, denied yet another request by an industry participant to set aside or modify a CID. While the bases for the request were unique to the situation – requesting it be limited to issues raised in a prior Consent Order, the potential violation of which ostensibly gave rise to CID, and limited in time to the applicable limitations period – the outcome by then-Acting Director Uejio is not surprising for those who have watched these play out.
So what lessons can we take from this decision? First, even if an investigation is based on prior activity, the Bureau takes a broad view of its authority to investigate what might appear to be unrelated entities or activities. Second, the Bureau takes a narrow view of the impact of releases granted in Consent Orders. Third, the CFPB does not view the statute of limitations as a basis upon which to limit an investigation. And finally, remember that if you want a CID to remain private, that will never occur if a petition to limit or set aside is filed with the Bureau, because it is considered a public record.
Overall, petitions to modify or set aside are rarely granted and, when they are, tend to be quite narrow in their application. As such, think carefully and consider the collateral implications before filing such a petition.
I’m thrilled to announce that Bedard Law Group is the new sponsor for the Compliance Digest. Bedard Law Group, P.C. – Compliance Support – Defense Litigation – Nationwide Complaint Management – Turnkey Speech Analytics. And Our New BLG360 Program – Your Low Monthly Retainer Compliance Solution. Visit www.bedardlawgroup.com, email John H. Bedard, Jr., or call (678) 253-1871.
I’m thrilled to announce that Bedard Law Group is the new sponsor for the Compliance Digest. Bedard Law Group, P.C. – Compliance Support – Defense Litigation – Nationwide Complaint Management – Turnkey Speech Analytics. And Our New BLG360 Program – Your Low Monthly Retainer Compliance Solution. Visit www.bedardlawgroup.com, email John H. Bedard, Jr., or call (678) 253-1871.
Every week, AccountsRecovery.net brings you the most important news in the industry. But, with compliance-related articles, context is king. That’s why the brightest and most knowledgable compliance experts are sought to offer their perspectives and insights into the most important news of the day. Read on to hear what the experts have to say this week.
Judge Denies Class Certification Motion in FDCPA Case
A District Court judge in Indiana has denied a plaintiff’s motion to certify a class in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit, ruling that the agreement between the plaintiff and his attorney renders the plaintiff an inadequate representative for the entire class while also criticizing the plaintiff’s attorney “regarding the work that counsel has done to identify and investigate potential claims.” More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM JESSICA KLANDER OF BASSFORD REMELE: This case is a great reminder of how important the class representative’s deposition is in a class action case. A critical (and sometimes overlooked) requirement of class certification is that the class representative must “adequately represent” the class. When preparing for the representative’s deposition it is not only important to focus on the substantive claims and alleged damages, but it also important to focus on whether or not the individual will adequately represent the class. That means asking questions aimed at learning the representative’s understanding of the claims, any unique facts that differ from the rest of the class claims, the representative’s involvement (or lack thereof) in the case, and any arrangements between the attorney and the class representative as to fees and costs.
THE COMPLIANCE DIGEST IS SPONSORED BY:
Judge Grants MTD on Remanded Case Over Lack of Standing
A District Court judge in Ohio has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case because claiming statutory damages is not enough of a concrete injury for the plaintiff to have standing to sue. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM RICK PERR OF KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK: Standing decisions have finally crossed the line to the utterly bizarre. If allegations that attempting to collect a debt that is not owed do not confer standing, then when can FDCPA cases be brought in federal court? The allegations in this case are the quintessential purpose behind the FDCPA’s private cause of action.
As I have written many times, defendant agencies beware wanting your cases decided in state court by judges unfamiliar with the FDCPA and subject to a process that is not as strict and controlled as the federal court docket. Moreover, state court decisions have almost no persuasive value in other states.
These standing decisions are not in the ARM industry’s best interest.
CFPB Denies Request to Modify or Set Aside CID
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has published an order from its former Acting Director denying a request from a petitioner to modify or set aside a Civil Investigative Demand it received but has granted in part a request from the petitioner that part of their petitions and portions of a declaration be treated confidentially. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM JOHN REDDING OF ALSTON & BIRD: In what has become somewhat routine, the CFPB in an administrative order from September and recently made public, denied yet another request by an industry participant to set aside or modify a CID. While the bases for the request were unique to the situation – requesting it be limited to issues raised in a prior Consent Order, the potential violation of which ostensibly gave rise to CID, and limited in time to the applicable limitations period – the outcome by then-Acting Director Uejio is not surprising for those who have watched these play out.
So what lessons can we take from this decision? First, even if an investigation is based on prior activity, the Bureau takes a broad view of its authority to investigate what might appear to be unrelated entities or activities. Second, the Bureau takes a narrow view of the impact of releases granted in Consent Orders. Third, the CFPB does not view the statute of limitations as a basis upon which to limit an investigation. And finally, remember that if you want a CID to remain private, that will never occur if a petition to limit or set aside is filed with the Bureau, because it is considered a public record.
Overall, petitions to modify or set aside are rarely granted and, when they are, tend to be quite narrow in their application. As such, think carefully and consider the collateral implications before filing such a petition.
I’m thrilled to announce that Bedard Law Group is the new sponsor for the Compliance Digest. Bedard Law Group, P.C. – Compliance Support – Defense Litigation – Nationwide Complaint Management – Turnkey Speech Analytics. And Our New BLG360 Program – Your Low Monthly Retainer Compliance Solution. Visit www.bedardlawgroup.com, email John H. Bedard, Jr., or call (678) 253-1871.
