Attorney Mark Richard Colombell's Legal Cases

Litigation

Landes v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC

Mar 30, 2011

OUTCOME: Motion to Dismiss Granted on Potential Class Action

Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a class action complaint affecting 91,000 class members. The plaintiff sought class certification for an alleged Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violatio ... n involving dunning letters offering “tax season savings.” The plaintiff contended that the letters were deceptive, and thus violated the FDCPA, because the consumer would not actually have saved the stated amount due to potential income tax implications. We successfully argued that had the collection agency dispensed tax advice as the plaintiff demanded, the collection agency would have been engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, a misdemeanor offense in Virginia. The Court further agreed that there is no requirement in the FDCPA that any such tax disclosure is required. This was a case of first impression within the Fourth Circuit.

Litigation

Katz v. Allied Interstate et al.,

Mar 18, 2010

OUTCOME: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted

Successfully defended a national collection agency for alleged violations of state and federal laws.

Civil rights

Sunday Lucas v. C.T. Woody, Jr., et al, 2014 Va. LEXIS 52, 756 S.E.2d 447 (2014).

N/A

OUTCOME: Affirmation of trial court ruling on appeal

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s ruling dismissing a former inmates state law and § 1983 claims based on the statute of limitations. The issue before the Supreme Court was whet ... her the statute of limitations in Va. Code § 8.01-243.2 applies when the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the time she files her action relating to the conditions of her confinement. The plaintiff contended that the language of the statute refers to a person who is confined in a state or local correctional facility. We argued that the language of the statute refers to a person who brings or has brought on his behalf a personal action relating to the conditions of his or her confinement. The Court found that both interpretations were supported by the language of the statute. However, in concluding that the statute was applicable to the plaintiff (a former inmate), the Court emphasized that the purpose of a statute of limitations is to provide parties and potential parties certainty with regard to when a cause of action is extinguished and noted that the plaintiff’s interpretation did just the opposite. The Court also read Code § 8.01-243.2 in conjunction with Code § 8.01-230 that provides that a “right of action shall be deemed to accrue and the prescribed limitation period shall begin to run from the date the injury is sustained.” The Court concluded that when read in conjunction, these two statutes mandate the following result: a cause of action for personal injury related to conditions of confinement in a state or local correctional facility accrues on, and the statute of limitation period beings to run from, the date the injury is sustained.

Litigation

Daniels, d/b/a Poker Palace v. Mobley, 285 Va. 402 (2013).

N/A

OUTCOME: Affirmation of trial court ruling on appeal

Successfully defended a state prosecutor on appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia (SCOVA). The plaintiff, the operator of a bingo hall, filed a declaratory judgment against the prosecutor who had co ... ncluded that Texas Hold Em Poker constituted illegal gambling. The SCOVA held that the plaintiff’s action did not present a justiciable controversy. The SCOVA further determined that the trial court had the authority to rule upon the facial challenge to the constitutionality of the illegal gambling statute and it did not err in doing so.

Mark Richard Colombell's Legal Cases (4)

Landes v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC

Katz v. Allied Interstate et al.,

Sunday Lucas v. C.T. Woody, Jr., et al, 2014 Va. LEXIS 52, 756 S.E.2d 447 (2014).

Daniels, d/b/a Poker Palace v. Mobley, 285 Va. 402 (2013).