Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in July 2016

Calif. Supreme Court Holds Atty Fees to be Included in Determining Constitutional Limits of Punitive Damages Awards

The Supreme Court of California recently held that, in determining whether punitive damages awards are within constitutional limits, attorney’s fees may be included in the calculation of the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, regardless of whether the fees are awarded by the trier of fact as part of its verdict or are determined by the trial court after the verdict has been rendered. A copy of the opinion in Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff suffered a broken leg and was taken to a veterans hospital.  He experienced several complications from his…

MD Pa. Holds Notice Explaining Tax Consequences of Debt Cancellation Could Be Misleading

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently denied a debt collector’s motion to dismiss, holding that a collection notice describing the potential tax consequences of settlements involving cancellation of indebtedness of $600 or more may be misleading or deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer. A copy of the opinion in Balon v. Enhanced Recovery Company, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. A consumer filed a complaint against a debt collector alleging the defendant supposedly violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending a letter that stated that “any indebtedness of $600.00 or more,…

5th Cir. Confirms Self-Serving Testimony of Emotional Distress Insufficient Under FCRA, Commercial Losses Not Recoverable

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., does not allow recovery for commercial or investment property losses. The Court also concluded that where a plaintiff points to no evidence that the denial of credit was actually caused by the defendant’s inaccurate credit reporting, judgment is proper in favor of the furnisher. Finally, the Fifth Circuit concluded that a plaintiff is not entitled to emotional distress damages where the only evidence of emotional distress is the plaintiff’s own self-serving and conclusory deposition testimony. A…