The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a putative class action for alleged violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Posts published by “Daniel Miller”
Daniel Miller is an associate in the Chicago office of Maurice Wutscher LLP, practicing in the firm’s Consumer Credit Litigation and Commercial Litigation groups. Daniel has substantial experience as a litigation attorney representing clients in both individual and class action cases involving the FDCPA, TCPA, FCRA, TILA, RESPA, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and various other federal and state statutes. He also has experience in representing corporate clients in commercial transactions and executive compensation agreements. Daniel earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Illinois College of Law, and his Bachelor of Arts in History from Durham University in the United Kingdom. He is admitted to practice law in Illinois and the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Illinois.
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, recently held that a group of senior citizen consumers were required to pursue administrative remedies before suing private companies to challenge their tax assessments billed under the state's Property Assessed Clean Energy program (PACE).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court's ruling that a credit union’s fee practices did not breach its contract with a customer. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that the credit union did not make any promises not to use the "available balance" method to assess nonsufficient fund (NSF) fees or not to charge multiple fees when a transaction is presented to it multiple times.
In response to a certified question from a bankruptcy court, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a recorded judgment lien attaches to homestead property where the judgment debtor has equity in excess of the $150,000 exemption under Arizona law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a bank did not perfect its security interest in a business debtor’s assets because the two UCC-1 Financing Statements filed with the Florida Secured Transaction Registry that failed to correctly name the debtor were “seriously misleading” under Florida Statute Section 679.5061(2), as the Registry does not implement a “standard search logic” necessary to trigger the safe harbor exception set forth in Florida Statute Section 679.5061(3).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that: (1) New York’s interest-on-escrow law is preempted by the National Bank Act of 1864 under the “ordinary legal principles of pre-emption,” Barnett Bank of Marion Cnty., N.A. v. Nelson, and (2) the amendments to the NBA in the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act did not change this analysis.
The Supreme Court of Missouri recently reversed the judgment of a trial court in favor of two consumers on the finance company’s petition for a deficiency judgment in relation to a promissory note and security agreement financing the consumers’ vehicle.
The Supreme Court of Arizona recently held that recording a notice of trustee's sale, by itself, is not an affirmative act that accelerates the debt. Therefore, the Court held, the foreclosure at issue in the notice of trustee's sale in this case was not time-barred.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that, because the home seller in an installment sale contract received a judgment of possession before the buyer filed for bankruptcy, the home was not part of the buyer’s bankruptcy estate.
8th Cir. Distinguishes ‘Article III’ and ‘Statutory’ Standing in FDCPA ‘Third Party Disclosure’ Case
8th Cir. Distinguishes ‘Article III’ and ‘Statutory’ Standing in FDCPA ‘Third Party Disclosure’ Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the judgment of a trial court and held that non-consumers cannot bring a claim under Section 1692c(b) of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the class certification order of a trial court, finding sua sponte that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim against a debt collection law firm under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a class-action lawsuit at the summary judgment stage for lack of Article III standing.