In 2017, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg, Pa. successfully obtained dismissal of an insurance denial suit by Yahoo! brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the suit (Case No. 5:17-cv-00447), Yahoo! alleged that National Union had wrongfully refused to defend five underlying Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
And now for something completely different: Lemke v. Escallate, LLC, No. 17-cv-5234 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2019). Although some case law out of Illinois may make one question whether to collect debts there, this case illustrates that just because a consumer may state a plausible claim doesn’t mean they can always prove it.
On April 5, 2019, in Holzman v. Malcom S. Gerald & Assocs., Inc., 2019 WL 1495642, the Eleventh Circuit held that an express threat of litigation is not required to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act so long as an implicit threat can be reasonably inferred from the communication. The
The Southern District of Florida recently ruled that ringless voicemails (RVM) are “calls” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Schaevitz v. Braman Hyundai, No. 1:17-cv-23890 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2019) the defendant sent a pre-recorded RVM to the plaintiff soliciting a return call regarding trading in the plaintiff’s car for a newer
