FDCPA: Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Resler v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A. – SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER – USDC – CV-02-2510PAM/RLE January 23, 2003 – District Court grants debt collector summary judgment on all butone claim, citing the Rooker- Feldman doctrine as the basis: “The first part of Resler’s FDCPA claim depends on the merits of his deceit-on-the [Minnesota state] court claim. As discussedabove, because the resolution of that claim requires this Court to examine the state-court judgment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not permit the Court to entertain the claim. Thus, to the extent Resler’s FDCPA claim rests on his contention that Defendants committed deceit on the[state] court, the [federal] Court may not consider it.”

FDCPA: Summary Judgment/Motions to Dismiss

Nakao v. International Data Services (D. Hi. 03-00225 SPK/BMK – October 18, 2004) .Variousissues FDCPA theories discussed including vicarious liability of collection employee andcollection of disputed amounts. More analysis to follow.

Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Services. Inc. 248 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2001). The Defendant’sattempt to collect commercially reasonable service fees, which were otherwise allowable underthe Nebraska UCC, did not violate the FDCPA. Collection on a time-barred debt not a violationof the FDCPA as long as there was no actual or implied threat of litigation.

Larson v. Jon R. Hawks, Ltd. – MOTION TO DISMISS ORDER – USDC Minn. CV-00-2713DWF/AJB June 21, 2001 –

The federal court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss. “…the Court finds no merit whatsoever to the [Defendant’s] contention that violation of the FDCPA isconditioned upon the existence of a private cause of action under Minn. Stat. § 332.50. A federal cause of action based upon 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) may arise out of ‘[t]he threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken.’ Picht v. John R. Hawks, Ltd. 236 F.3d 446, 448 (8th Cir. 2001). The availability of a private cause of action under state law is not a condition, in addition to the illegality of the action that is imposed by the federal statute.”

Sonmore v. Checkrite – SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER – USDC Minn. – CV-99-2039 DDA-FLN – District Court denies summary judgment to debt collector who sent allegedly deceptive collection letters.

Invasion of Privacy

Lake v. Wal-Mart – 582 NW2d 231 – D. Minn. 1998 – Minnesota Supreme Court first recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy, adopting the Restatement Second standards.

O’Brien v. Minnesota Recovery Bureau – Wright County Minn. – Court File C8-99-470 – Firstknown jury verdict on a theory of invasion of privacy awarded against repossession agency to ahusband and wife. Verdict: $15,000.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express C5-02-276 Minn.Ct.App. August 20, 2002 – Minnesota Courtof Appeals reverses and remands a case which the district court dismissed for failure to state aclaim. Dismissal of appellants complaint pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failure to statea claim upon which relief may be granted is premature when appellants allege that (1) their rightto privacy has been violated by the improper dissemination of their social security numbers to 16affiliated business sites in six states; (2) the numbers are still being shared and are accessible in general; and (3) they have and will incur costs to monitor credit ratings and take preventative measures against identity theft. Reversed and remanded. Minge, Judge.

Baisch v. Nationwide Credit – Hennepin County Minn. – Court File MC-99-16318

Bauer v. Ford Motor Credit – 149 F.Supp.2nd 1106 – USDC Minn. 2001

Halstead v. Norwest – Hennepin County Minn. – Court File CT-99-5217

Herickoff v. Bonanza Bank – USDC Minn. CV-00-144 RHK-RLE

Kunza v. Vargas State Bank – Otter Tail County Minn. – Court File C3-99-585

Robins v. Conseco – Beltrami County Minn. – Court File C7-00-2149

Saice Brinkman v. MidAmerica Bank – USDC Minn. CV-98-2396 DSD-JMM

Swarthout v. Mutual Service Life – 632 NW2d 741 Minn.Ct.App. 2001 – 2001 WL 881490

Breach of Peace

Akerlund v. TCF – Summary Judgment Order – June 11, 2001 – The Court finds that a trespassentry onto postal service property is a breach of peace.

Class Actions

Reinke v. Harold Chevrolet-Geo – Minn.Ct.App. C902-409 – August 20, 2002 – The MinnesotaCourt of Appeals finds that Minnesota courts ruling on class certification are not required to makespecific findings on the proper measure of damages, or the specific proof required to substantiateeach element of the underlying claims.

Lewy v. Investment Advisors Inc. C6-02-416 (Minn.Ct.App. 2002) The Minnesota Court of Appeals finds certification of a class under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is proper whenthe class satisfies the mandatory requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, andadequacy of representation, and if common questions of law and fact predominate to make a classaction the superior method for fairly and efficiently resolving the controversy. When commonquestions of law and fact predominate on the cause of damages, individual variations on theamount of damages will not preclude class certification.


ColData Consent Decree – 1999 – ColData consent to

Truth In Lending Act

Stevens v. Brookdale Dodge, Inc., USDC Minnesota, Court File No. CV-00-2632 JEL/JGL

Lieske v. Morrie’s Brooklyn Park Daewoo, USDC Minnesota, Court File No. CV-00-2658JMR/FLN

Automobile Class Actions – Class Certifications

Reinke v. Harold Chevrolet, Hennepin County Minnesota, Court File No. CT-01-1519

Byrd v. Metropolitan Corporation, Hennepin County Minnesota, Court File No. CT-00-016055

Logan v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, Hennepin County Minnesota, Court File No. CT-94-18688

Avent v. Alandale Corporation, Hennepin County Minnesota, Court File No. CT-00-7438

Automobile Repossession Orders

Saice and Brinkman v. MidAmerica Bank, USDC Minnesota, Court File No. CV-99-2039DDA/FLN

Johnson v. Cedit Acceptance Corp., et.al, USDC Minnesota, Court File No. 99-402 MJD/JGL

Wazwaz v. Firstar Bank, N.A., Hennepin County Minnesota, Court File No. CT-98-12425(punitive damages)

Wazwaz v. Firstar Bank, N.A., Hennepin County Minnesota, Court File No. CT-98-12425(summary judgment)

Foxworth v. GMAC, USDC Minnesota, Court File No. 4-96-1117 JMM

Ryappy/Padgette v. First Bank, F.S.B., Crow Wing County Minnesota, Court File No. C9-97-0197

Punitive Damages 

Morical v. First Revenue Assurance, USDC Minnesota, Court File No. CV-01-409 DWF/AJB

Allen v. Fidelity Financial, et al, USDC Minnesota, Court File No CV-98-1725 ADM/AJB

Bauer v. Ford Motor Credit Company, USDC Minnesota, Court File No. CV-00-389 DSD/JGL

Anderson v. Bill Wahlund, Hennepin County Minnesota, Court File No. MC-01-002464

Lieske v. Morrie’s Brooklyn Park Daewoo, USDC Minnesota, Court File No. 00-2658 JMR/FLN

Automobile Dealership – Various Options

Reinke v. Harold Chevrolet, Hennepin County Minnesota, Court File No. CT-01-1519

Sutton v. Viking Oldsmobile, Court File No. C2-99-1843, 2001 LEXIS 866 (Minn.App.Ct.July31, 2001) (Sutton III)

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler (Scott I), 598 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler (Scott III), 637 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)

Woyee v. Richfield Moters, USDC Minnesota, Court File No. 99-109 JRT/FLN

Find out how we can improve your credit score now!