Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Eltman, Eltman & Cooper’s (EEC) 2013 letter to plaintiff sought to collect on Capital One Bank credit card debt owed client LVNV Funding LLC. Plaintiff alleged EEC’s letter did not disclose LVNV’s purchase of the debt from North Star Capital Acquisitions LLC, not Capital One, after reduction to judgment. She claimed Resurgent Capital Servs. LP retained EEC to represent LVNV to collect the debt, but that neither LVNV nor predecessor North Star took steps required by New York law to take assignment of the debt or enforce the judgment. District court allowed plaintiff to amend her putative class suit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) so as to add a demand for actual damages on behalf of a sub-class comprising consumers who received letters substantially identical to the collection letter sent to plaintiff, and for who the alleged debts were bought by LVNV after the debts were reduced to judgment. In light of its march 2016 decision, the court found the claims alleged on behalf of the sub-class stated plausible violations of the FDCPA. Further, plaintiff’s amendments seeking damages based on payments made by members of the subject sub-class would not be futile under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Eltman, Eltman & Cooper’s (EEC) 2013 letter to plaintiff sought to collect on Capital One Bank credit card debt owed client LVNV Funding LLC. Plaintiff alleged EEC’s letter did not disclose LVNV’s purchase of the debt from North Star Capital Acquisitions LLC, not Capital One , after reduction to judgment. She claimed Resurgent Capital Servs. LP retained EEC to represent LVNV to collect the debt, but that neither LVNV nor predecessor North Star took steps required by New York law to take assignment of the debt or enforce the judgment. District court allowed plaintiff to amend her putative class suit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) so as to add a demand for actual damages on behalf of a sub-class comprising consumers who received letters substantially identical to the collection letter sent to plaintiff, and for who the alleged debts were bought by LVNV after the debts were reduced to judgment. In light of its march 2016 decision, the court found the claims alleged on behalf of the sub-class stated plausible violations of the FDCPA. Further, plaintiff’s amendments seeking damages based on payments made by members of the subject sub-class would not be futile under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.