New York District Court Affirms Plaintiff’s Standing to Bring Suit Under the FDCPA, Denies Defendant Debt Collector’s Motion to Dismiss

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently denied a defendant debt collector’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s putative class action alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), finding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a substantive violation of the FDCPA that demonstrates a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact, or, alternatively, a procedural violation of the FDCPA that poses a risk of real harm to plaintiff’s statutory interests. 

California Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Borrower’s Complaint For Lack of Standing To Challenge Alleged Irregularities in the Securitization of Her Loan

The Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, recently affirmed the lower court’s ruling that plaintiff borrower lacked standing to challenge the alleged irregularities in the securitization of her loan, thereby dismissing her complaint alleging wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief and quiet title.

New York’s Third Department Finds Factual Questions Exist Whether Defendant Timber Company Adversely Possessed Disputed Parcel For Requisite Period

The Third Department of New York’s Appellate Division recently held that the lower court erred: (1) in granting summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, because factual questions existed whether defendant timber company adversely possessed the disputed parcel for the requisite period, and (2) in declining to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, which is distinct from his claim for treble damages pursuant to the RPAPL. 

New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint Against Mortgagee and Servicer on the Grounds That the Claims Are Barred by the Rooker-Feldman, Res Judicata and Entire Controversy Doctrines

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted a motion for summary judgment to a mortgage lender and servicer, among others, on the plaintiffs’ claims that arose from their allegation that the lender unilaterally had increased their interest rate at the closing.