- 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9295
- Affirmed most of District Court dismissal of FDCPA action, vacated portion of order which it remanded
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from District Court dismissing FDCPA action for lack of personal jurisdiction and failing to state a claim.
- Law firm mailing one debt collection letter, engaging in one debt collection phone and mailing summons were sufficient for New York State’s “long arm” personal jurisdiction for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) where debt collection was a major aspect of the law firm’s mission. Money owed by alleged co-obligor to nursing home was debt for FDCPA purposes (nursing home services exchanged for a monetary obligation.) Dismissing an action alleging FDCPA violation was appropriate where: a.) nursing home’s admission agreement did not violate the Nursing Home Reform Act (the “NHRA”); b.) the NHRA did not preempt Pennsylvania’s indigent support statute nor was there a conflict; c.) complaint failed to show the collection complaint was frivolous or baseless; and d.) complaint’s allegation of prohibited conduct was not supported by factual allegations. Where District Court did not fully consider other claims due to dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction, remand to consider those issues was appropriate.
- Sack, Lynch, Lohier
Analysis: Bankrupt Borrowers Won’t Forfeit Coronavirus Aid Payments to Creditors Under Stimulus Package
3060 in the system
1 Being Processed