The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a powerful tool against abusive collection practices, including unfair and deceptive practices by debt buyers and collection attorneys occurring in the context of state court consumer collection litigation and judgment enforcement.
The Act’s strict liability standard and mandatory attorney’s fees provisions are not, however, a guarantee of success – a wide variety of issues, from statutory coverage and definitions (i.e., who is a “debt collector," what constitutes a “debt," etc.) to the “bona fide error” defense, to the requirement that violations be “material” – can pose obstacles for practitioners unfamiliar with the Act and the abundant case law interpreting it. Conversely, without familiarity with the Act, practitioners may not recognize violations that occur in the context of high volume collection and judgment enforcement practice.
Join Dan Schlanger for a discussion of how to skillfully vet, plead and litigate FDCPA claims based on unfair and deceptive conduct occurring during the course of state court collection litigation and post-judgment enforcement. Mr. Schlanger is a partner at Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP, where he focuses on class action and other significant affirmative consumer litigation brought under the FDCPA and other state and federal statutes.
Daniel Schlanger is the managing partner at Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP, and heads its consumer practice. His practice focuses on class actions and other affirmative litigation, predominantly in Federal Court.
Dan joined Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP in 2007 after working as a staff attorney at Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, where he was a member of that organization’s consumer law unit, and helped to found a program focused on wage and hour litigation on behalf of low-income workers. Prior to that, Dan clerked for the Hon. R. Lanier Anderson, III on the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit.
Dan received his law degree from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 2004. He received his undergraduate degree from Carleton College, magna cum laude, in 1994.
Dan’s work as a lawyer is guided by his passion for assisting victims of lending fraud, collection abuse, and other types of marketplace injustice, such as hidden fees and dangerous or deficient products.
His notable results include:
Coble, et al. v. Cohen & Slamowitz, et al., 11-CV-01037 (S.D.N.Y.) (FDCPA class action regarding alleged filing of fraudulent affidavits in tens of thousands of state court collection cases). See, 824 F. Supp. 2d 568 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss).
In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Plastic Coolant Tubes Products Liability Litigation, 11-MD-2233 (N.D. Ohio) (multidistrict products liability class action) (member, executive committee). See, 880 F. Supp. 2d 801 (S.D. Ohio 2012); 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88693 (S.D. Ohio June 30, 2014), aff’dsummary order (6th Cir. 14-3421, 7/13/15);
Madden v. Midland Funding et al., 11-CV-814 (S.D.N.Y.) (class action). See, 2015 U.S. App. 8483, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015) (reversing district court’s denial of class certification and holding that National Bank Act Preemption of state usury laws did not extend to non-bank taking assignment of loans from a national bank), rehearing denied 8/15/2015;
Moy v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., 12-CV-02382 (E.D.N.Y.) (Approved FDCPA class action regarding allegedly false and misleading collection letters sent to judgment debtors.)
De La Paz v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, et al., 11-CV-9625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Approved FDCPA class action against high volume debt collection law firm involving alleged mistatements regarding debt collectors’ standing to sue, and alleged failure to meaningfully review state court collection pleadings.)
This one was really good.
Straightforward explanation presented in easy to understand segments covering all issues.
Excellent presentation of the basic law and more interesting current issues.
well structured, practical
very good speaker.
A thorough, practical conversation of how best to skillfully vet, plead as well as litigate FDCPA claims grounded on unfair and deceptive conduct occurring during state court collection litigation and post-judgment enforcement.