Author Topic: Court Rules 125 Calls in 135 Days is Not FDCPA Violation  (Read 571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Badger94

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 125
Court Rules 125 Calls in 135 Days is Not FDCPA Violation
« on: February 10, 2017 05:11:08 PM »
I'm emailed sub'd to InsideARM due to an interest in what the other side is thinking, yes consider the source but wow, sure will be interesting to see what repercussions develop on this.

http://www.insidearm.com/news/00042598-court-rules-125-calls-135-days-not-fdcpa-/


Bruno the JDB Killer

  • BANNED
  • Posts: 14304
Re: Court Rules 125 Calls in 135 Days is Not FDCPA Violation
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2017 05:18:48 PM »
Try revoking permission and a cease and desist, Chronic Lawsuit Filers. The woman is an idiot, she deserved to lose. Doesn't even know what the law she sues under requires.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

11181986

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 264
Re: Court Rules 125 Calls in 135 Days is Not FDCPA Violation
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2017 05:28:07 PM »
Yeah, it's clear the court looked at her unfavorably because she is a professional plaintiff.

kevinmanheim

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 11489
Re: Court Rules 125 Calls in 135 Days is Not FDCPA Violation
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2017 10:24:58 PM »
•Once she started receiving the calls, she downloaded a cell phone app called “Blocked Calls Get Cash.”

According to its Web site, “[t]he Block Calls Get Cash app was developed to help [users] effortlessly exercise [their] rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). If [a consumer] receives a robocall, BCGC prompts [the consumer] to answer a few simple questions” and the call is logged. Then that “information is reviewed by Lemberg Law, the most active consumer law firm in the country[,]” for violations of the TCPA.


Wow.

kevinmanheim

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 11489
Re: Court Rules 125 Calls in 135 Days is Not FDCPA Violation
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2017 11:01:26 PM »
'The court determined that Plaintiff had alleged injury in precisely the form the FDCPA was intended to guard against and thus had Article II standing to bring the action.'

This is a win for consumers.

11181986

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 264
Re: Court Rules 125 Calls in 135 Days is Not FDCPA Violation
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2017 11:06:40 PM »
Alleged harassing phone calls will always confer standing.

trueq

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5269
Re: Court Rules 125 Calls in 135 Days is Not FDCPA Violation
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2017 03:36:26 PM »
 The lady did not send a cease calling me demand until her lawyer did it and calls stopped.

I agree this case should not have been brought UNLESS she sent a cease call demand and then they did this.

Just goes to show stupid lawyers can bring stupid cases no matter which side they are on.
My free speech is not legal advice.  If you need legal advice, you need to talk to a lawyer.

Litigation Defense record
Arbitration record:   9 wins * 0 loses
Court Record:         2 wins * 2 judgments (1 of the 2 judgments has been vacated, other judgment upheld on appeal, marked "satisfied", because I wrote a check.)

The one bank that beat me in court, I now have a $2200 limit credit card from them again.
Redemption is always possible.

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 10326
Re: Court Rules 125 Calls in 135 Days is Not FDCPA Violation
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2017 07:13:45 PM »
It also goes to show how stupid serial litigants can be when they think they know the law.

 

credit