mparksmagic Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Here is the latest case law:http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/013007dearie.pdfMiller v. UCS; W&A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHateCAs Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Hmm, that same lawsuit was tried before in another venue and failed.The part about the attorney fees being improper at least... still reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHateCAs Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Just finished it. I don't see anything special in here. Plaintiff lost on most of his suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mparksmagic Posted February 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Not necessarily.. Suit is still in progress. This was just the MSJ of the defendant, which was denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHateCAs Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Plaintiff basically had three things going.1) The attorney fee sharing through NAN was improper (lost.. been tried in another venue and lost also... unless this is the same case under appeal).2) W&A did not have meaningful attorney involvement (lost.. well it was a consent judgment that agreed that W&A did not violate 1692e(3). Discovery looks like W&A did not violate.)3) Same thing against C&S which plaintiff may prevail on.Also, your title is misleading as nothing here was about whether attorney CAs are liable under the FDCPA (they have been for a while and there's plenty of caselaw on this anyway).Nothing really special here... at least not for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts