Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published by “Jenna Tersteegen”

Jenna Tersteegen is an Associate in Maurice Wutscher's New York City office, practicing in the firm’s Consumer Credit Litigation and Commercial Litigation groups. Prior to joining the firm, Jenna was an associate attorney at a litigation law firm in New York City. Her practice covered New York state labor and employment laws, premises liability and property damage cases. She conducted all pre-trial aspects of litigation, including preparing case strategy and evaluation reports, taking and defending depositions, and drafting dispositive pre- and post-trial motions. She is admitted to practice law in New York, and her Illinois admission on motion is pending.

5th Cir. Rejects Borrower’s Bankruptcy Claim Objection as Barred by Res Judicata

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently rejected a borrower’s objections to a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction and held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the borrower’s claim objection as it was ultimately based on the alleged impropriety of the creditor’s claim from a prior bankruptcy.

Illinois App. Court (2nd Dist) Rejects ‘Dual Tracking,’ Standing, Notice, Other Challenges to Foreclosure

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed a trial court's ruling denying a borrower’s motion to vacate the default judgment of foreclosure against him and confirming the judicial sale of the borrower’s property.

Maryland High Court Rules Debtors’ Attempts to Void Judgments for Unlicensed Debt Collection Subject to 3-Year SOL

The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, recently held that judgments obtained by an unlicensed debt buyer were not void, and that the debtors' claims for unjust enrichment and money damages under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) were subject to Maryland's general three-year statute of limitations.

3rd Cir. Clarifies Procedure for ‘Hybrid Wage-and-Hour’ Aggregate Litigation

In a “hybrid wage-and-hour” action brought by mortgage loan officers (MLOs), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently:  1) reiterated its prior holding that “an FLSA opt-in collective action is not, by its nature, incompatible with a parallel state law Rule 23 opt-out class action”, and 2) held that the trial court should not have required a trial in the FLSA opt-in collective action before deciding Rule 23 class certification on the parallel state-law claims.