The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a debt collector did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) where it unintentionally sent a valid debt collection communication to a non-debtor.
Posts published by “Ryan Grotz”
Ryan Grotz practices in Maurice Wutscher's Commercial Litigation, Consumer Credit Litigation, and Appellate groups. He has substantial experience in all phases of commercial litigation, including motion practice, written discovery, depositions, mediations, and bench and jury trials. Ryan received his Juris Doctor from the Chicago-Kent College of Law, where he was an associate editor on the Access to Justice Student Editorial Board. He was awarded his Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the University of Iowa. Ryan is licensed to practice law in Illinois and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/ryan-grotz/
The Texas Supreme Court recently held that a claim made by a bankruptcy trustee did not fall within a special warranty clause that limited the grantor’s liability to claims asserted by individuals "by, through and under" the grantor.
In an action challenging the accessibility of a website to blind and visually impaired people, the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, recently held that a California court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a Georgia LLC where the LLC purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in California by sending catalogs and selling over $300,000 worth of goods to California residents.
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, recently held that online digital currency exchange platforms have no obligation, in contract or in tort, to honor "forked" cryptocurrencies unless affirmatively provided for in a user agreement or otherwise.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that settling an objection to a class action settlement in return for a private payment to the objector can be inequitable, and if so that disgorgement is the appropriate remedy.
The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, recently held that an alleged oral agreement to refinance a home equity loan is subject to the statute of frauds and is unenforceable.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that it is generally not legal error for a trial court to hold that a settlement class satisfies class action predominance requirements, particularly for a class asserting a unifying federal claim, without first performing a choice-of-law analysis.
The Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, recently held that the successful bidder at a foreclosure sale must "strictly comply" with the Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance and that the tenant’s acceptance of a mortgagee’s untimely lease extension offer did not waive her rights under the KCRO.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a defendant that relies on potential punitive damages to satisfy the amount in controversy for removal under the federal Class Action Fairness Act meets that requirement if it shows that the proffered punitive/compensatory damages ratio is reasonably possible.
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, recently held that a homeowner was barred from challenging a foreclosure where the deed to the property had vested to a third party.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that, under the federal Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) statute of limitations provisions, a quiet title action brought by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae is a "contract" claim with a six-year statute of limitations, and not a "tort" claim subject to a three-year statute of limitations.
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, recently held that the Federal Trade Commission's "Holder Rule" limitation on recovery applies to attorney fees, such that a plaintiff’s total recovery on a Holder Rule claim — including attorney fees — cannot exceed the amount paid by the plaintiff under the contract.