Consumer protection Lawyer
Practice Areas: Consumer Protection
OUTCOME: The Court denied CitiMortgage's motion to dismiss, finding the Plaintiff had stated claims under 11 U.S.C 524, 11 U.S.C 362, and Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1
OUTCOME: Court denied CitiMortgage's motion, holding that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims under Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules
OUTCOME: The Court denied in part and granted in part the defendant's motion to dismiss.
OUTCOME: The Court denied the defendants' two motions to dismiss, findind that the plaintiffs had plead plausible causes of action as to the automatic stay and discharge injunction. The Court dismissed the FDCPA claims solely on jurisdictional grounds.
OUTCOME: The Court granted Plaintiff leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery and denied Defendant's motion without prejudice.
Defendant Stern & Eisenberg, P.C. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence which, if believed, would cast doubt on Defendants' factual assertions suppo ... rting its claim of lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff requested, in the alternative, for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
OUTCOME: The Fourth Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's grant of Defendant's motion to dismiss regarding whether or not Section 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA permits oral disputes. Addressing this matter of first impressi ... on, the Fourth Circuit noted that the Third Circuit held that Section 1692g(a)(3) must be read to include a writing requirement. However, the Second and Ninth Circuits held that the plain text of Section 1692g(a)(3) permits oral disputes, and that such a reading results in a logical, bifurcated scheme of consumer rights. The Fourth Circuit noted that the FDCPA clearly defines communications between a debt collector and consumers. The Court also noted that Sections 1692g(a)(4), 1692g(a)(5), and 1692g(b) explicitly require written communication, whereas 1692g(a)(3) plainly does not. Thus, the Court rejected ACS’s argument that 1692g(a)(3) must be read to impose an inherent writing requirement, and refused to insert additional language. Therefore, the Court held that Section 1692g(a)(3) permits consumers to orally dispute the validity of a debt. Accordingly, it vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
OUTCOME: The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court's opinion as to the appealed count. The 7th Circuit found that the statement regarding attorney fees was materially false on its face and, therefore, required no extrinsic evidence.
Plaintiff appealed the District Court's denial of his, and grant of Defendant's, Motion for Summary Judgment regarding whether or not a statement that attorney fees could be included in a judgment was ... a materially false on its face, where there was no law or agreement providing for attorney fees. “[U]nder the so-called ‘American Rule,” a losing party cannot be charged with the winning party’s attorney fees unless a statute or contract explicitly states otherwise.” (at 823) “The naive, trusting, unsophisticated consumer is therefore likely to believe a debt collector when it says that attorney fees are a potential consequence of nonpayment, and the language at issue is therefore misleading.” (at 825)
OUTCOME: Judgment for Defendant
Three-day bench trial that turned on the credibility of the witnesses and was decided in favor of Defendant. Trial Judge Jeffrey Cole ended his trial opinion as follows: "In closing, I would be remi ... ss not to note the outstanding lawyering in this case. Throughout the proceedings, Mr. Shapiro, counsel for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Foster, counsel for the Defendant, were cooperative, accommodating and courteous to each other. Their briefs were exceptional; they were thoughtful, carefully prepared, and well-supported by analysis and pertinent authority. Indeed, the briefs were among the best that I have seen. Both sides presented their respective cases with the highest degree of skill and professionalism."
OUTCOME: The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifyied the class, appointed Plaintiff as the class representative, and appointed Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Yarbrough as class counsel.
Judge Dimitrouleas of the Southern District of Florida described Mr. Shapiro and his co-counsel Donald Yarbrough as “counsel who are experienced in class action and consumer litigation.”
OUTCOME: The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification, certified the class, appointed Plaintiff as the class representative, and appointed Mr. Shapiro and O. Randolph Bragg as class counsel.
In granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification, Mr. Shapiro was described by Judge Gottschall of the Northern District of Illinois as “highly experienced in class actions.”
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
