In addressing cross motions for summary judgment in BONNIE BROWN & JAMES BROWN, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, Defendant., 8:18-CV-136-T-60AEP, 2019 WL 4221718 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2019) (“Browns v. Ocwen”) on 9/5/2019, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (“District Court”) determined that the Aspect dialer used by Defendant, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (“Ocwen”), was not an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.A. § 227 (“TCPA”). Plaintiff Bonnie Brown ...
In Gonzalez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 5:18-cv-340-Oc-30PRL, 2018 WL 4217065 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2018), the Middle District of Florida determined that the D.C. Circuit's opinion in ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) [hereinafter "ACA"], vacated the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") 2003, 2008, and 2015 Orders interpreting the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS").
The plaintiff, Wilfredo Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), alleged that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen") used an ATDS to place approximately 500 calls to his ...
In an order issued today, Judge Dalton of the Middle District of Florida held that in a non-bankruptcy context, allegations that collection of a mortgage debt is barred by the statute of limitations do not form a "plausible basis" for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, or the Declaratory Judgment Act.
In Garrison v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-978-Orl-37DCI (Order, Jan. 10, 2017), the plaintiff brought counts under five consumer protection laws, including the FDCPA and FCCPA, as well as for a ...
Be careful what you wish for. That was the message Middle District of Florida Judge Carlos Mendoza delivered in Claudet v. First Federal Credit Control, Inc., 14-CV-2068 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2015) to the filer of an improper motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court awarded attorney's fees AGAINST the filer of the improper Rule 11 motion, finding it was filed for an improper purpose (to harass opposing counsel) and certainly not the outcome the filer had in mind. More interestingly, the Court did so without any motion from the non-movant.
The ...