David Schultz Analyzes in ARM Compliance Digest: Judge Grants MTD in FDCPA Case Over Potentially Incorrect Balance in Underlying Collection Suit
In The News | 2 min read
Feb 27, 2024
In the February 26, 2024, edition of the ARM Compliance Digest, Hinshaw partner David Schultz discussed how a New York District Court Judge dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit due to lack of standing to sue. The plaintiff claimed that she was sued in state court for an unpaid debt with an incorrect balance.
Schultz writes:
Collection lawsuits are fertile grounds for FDCPA claims. We often see the FDCPA claim brought in the state court collection action as a counter claim and/or third-party action. Perhaps or more common is for the debtor to file a parallel action in federal court that asserts the FDCPA claims. This is often done if there is a challenge to some alleged error in the collection case, such as the debt amount is not right, there is a chain of title defect, an affidavit is erroneous, or some other procedural error. That is what happened in Bristol v Forster & Garbus; plaintiff claimed the debt amount in the collection case was wrong.
However, the court in Bristol put an end to the parallel FDCPA case based on Article III standing grounds. It reasoned that plaintiff at most alleged a threat of future harm that the state court judgment will be in the wrong amount, which the court said seems unlikely. This is another example of the benefits from the recent wave of favorable Article III cases – it ended the rush to federal court based on an alleged error in state court.
The parallel federal FDCPA case can cause problems for the defendant. It results in increased fees, which will likely be much more significant than what it would cost to just prosecute a collection case. It also allows the debtor’s counsel to increase fees that the defendant may have to pay. It provides the debtor with leverage to avoid the state court judgment. Of course, the claims could still be brought in state court as a counter claim. But the costs to litigate that will be less, it creates less leverage, and the state court judge may not be impressed with a claim that it does not know what should be a proper judgment.
Read the full February 26, 2024 edition of the AccountsRecovery.net Compliance Digest.
“Judge Grants MTD in FDCPA Case Over Potentially Incorrect Balance in Underlying Collection Suit” was published by ARM Compliance Digest on February 26, 2024.
Related People
Related Capabilities
Related Locations
Featured Insights

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

