Skip to Content Top

insideARM Spotlight: June FDCPA Case Law Review


Each month, insideARM puts out a list of some of the most influential FDCPA cases for the month. It is a resource regarding both positive and negative outcomes regarding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Here are some of the more notable cases from the month of June.

Ciganek v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that a Declaration attached to a collection complaint was false in its claim that an attorney would be available to assist with a service of process at a location 150 miles from the location of the courthouse, and thus that it was not considered an admissible declaration. The result of the case came from the District Court for the Northern District of California, which held that the address mistake was not a violation of the FDCPA or California law.

Taylor v. First Resolution Investment Corporation

The Ohio Supreme Court decided that without proof or the means to prove, a prayer for an interest rate is grounds for FDCPA action. This used an Ohio statute regarding the jurisdictions under which the case will be handled and where the debt was due to be paid. In this case, the statute of limitations had already passed.

Gomez v. Niemann & Heyer, L.L.P.

It was determined by the court that the failure to itemize the amount due in an initial demand letter is grounds for a claim under the FDCPA.

Your Rights as a Consumer

Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumers are protected from certain actions by debt collectors. This means that debt collectors cannot use harassing or deceptive practices in order to attempt to collect a debt. Violations of the FDCPA can result in the offender being forced to pay damages to the consumer, including attorney fees, damages, and other payments.

To discuss your potential case and protect your rights under the FDCPA, contact our Chicago consumer attorneys at Atlas Consumer Law