Archive for February 2016 – Page 2

Florida Bankruptcy Court Denies Mortgagee’s Motion to Reopen Chapter 7 Case

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied a mortgagee’s motion to reopen a Chapter 7 case to compel the surrender of real property, due to a five-year delay in filing the motion. In so ruling, the court agreed with an earlier ruling from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle

Read more →

9th Cir. Rules in Favor of Defendant in Putative TCPA Class Action Involving Third Party Consent

In an unreported ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment for the defendant in a putative class action for alleged violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Court held that the named plaintiff expressly consented to the text message in question when she provided her

Read more →

Rhode Island ‘Expired Debt Act’ More Than Name Implies

On Jan. 7, the Expired Debt Act (EDA) was introduced in the Rhode Island House of Representatives and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.  The bill was introduced by State Representatives Shekarchi, Solomon, Regunberg, McEntee, and Craven. Since 2007, Rhode Island has had its own Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RIFDCPA) that is, for

Read more →

Illinois Enacts Legislative Fix to Collection Agency Act

On Jan. 29, 2016, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law SB 1369 that provides welcomed corrections to the Illinois Collection Agency Act that was amended in 2015 by HB 3332. In a previous CFS blog, we described the proposed changes in SB 1369 that would rewind some of the unintended consequences wrought by HB

Read more →

9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Cert. in TCPA Action on Ascertainability, Predominance Grounds

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s order denying class certification in a lawsuit alleging violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), holding that the “district court did not abuse its discretion by finding the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) unsatisfied,” and that the “district court appropriately

Read more →