Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings in plaintiff's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action over garnishment of a joint bank account and court found defendant was not required by Pennsylvania law or the FDCPA to conduct pre-garnishment discovery and plaintiff had the burden to assert the claimed exemption or immunity. Motion granted.

Court Grants Sanctions, Certifies Class Seeking to Enforce Bankruptcy Discharge

Court Uses Lodestar Method to Calculate Attorneys' Fees in Privacy Action

'Price' Term of Spirit Airlines Contract Does Not Include Carry-On Bags

Court would not interpret provision of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act differently from plain language of the statute, which clearly prohibited debt collectors from communicating information about a debtor to other, non-exempt parties. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings denied.

FDCPA Challenge to Dunning Letter From Law Firm Is Dismissed as Insufficiently Pleaded

Defendants Not 'State Actor', Conspiracy to Obtain Signature on Release Not Alleged

Collection letter did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where the balance of a charged-off debt not accruing interest or fees was listed as a "balance due as of" since such language would not lead the least sophisticated debtor to believe that the debt could or would increase. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.

Defendant debt collector moved to dismiss plaintiff's FDCPA action and the court found that plaintiff did not plead facts sufficient to state a plausible FDCPA claim because he alleged no facts to support his conclusion that the underlying debt was a consumer debt. Motion granted.

Dunning Letter Met FDCPA §§1692e,1692g Despite Failure to Inform of Debt Components