Category Archives: 2016

Jared Hartman, Esq Posted on April 17th, 2016
On April 6, 2016, in the case of McCaskill v. Navient Solutions, Inc. in the US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Case No. 15-cv-1559, the Court granted a motion for partial summary judgment as to liability in favor of the consumer-plaintiff based on Navient calling his cell phone with an automatic telephone dialing system upwards of 727 times.

As we all know, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits a company from placing calls to a cell phone by using equipment that has the capacity to store and generate numbers to be dialed at random, and also if the calls are placed with robotic or pre-recorded voice messages. The only way for a company to not be found in violation of the TCPA for these calls is if the calls were placed for emergency purposes, or with the consumer’s prior express consent.

Because these calls were placed for purpose of debt collection, they were not for an emergency purpose. However, the issue in the lawsuit was with respect to prior express consent. Because Navient obtained the phone number through a public records search and did not get the number from Plaintiff voluntarily providing it to them, and because Navient failed to prove that she gave authority to another person to use her number for this Navient account, then Navient lost on summary judgment (meaning the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of the Plaintiff that Navient could not defend its case on liability in front of a jury).

Therefore, the Plaintiff in this case has now been awarded liability against Navient for upwards of 727 violations of the TCPA at $500 per call, for damages of $363,500.00. The motion for summary judgment left open for a jury to determine whether the violations by Navient were willful. If a jury does find the violations were willful, then the Court could impose triple damages in Plaintiff’s favor, thereby awarding her upwards of $1,090,500.00.

This court’s ruling can be read by clicking HERE.

Below are some very important points to be taken from the Court’s ruling:

Defendants identify no facts suggesting that Plaintiff knowingly released her cell phone number to [Navient]. Indeed, Defendants point to no evidence that Plaintiff had any contact with Defendants prior to receiving their calls. Defendants instead argue that Plaintiff manifested her consent by allowing her phone to ring over 700 times without attempting to stop the calls. (Doc. # 97 at 12). The Court is not persuaded. The statute requires “express consent,” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), and Plaintiff’s silence in the face of 727 phone calls demonstrates, at best, presumed or implied consent, which is not sufficient under the statute. In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7991 (2015).1
Defendants also suggest that there is a “significant question” about whether the -6140 number is exclusively Plaintiff’s to use, and thus whether it is a number for which Plaintiff may provide consent. (Doc. # 97 at 12). The TCPA requires prior express consent to be supplied by “the called party.” 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A). The Eleventh Circuit holds that “the called party” is the current subscriber of the cell phone, not the intended recipient of the call. Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 755 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2014)Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242, 1251–52 (11th Cir. 2014). More specifically, the subscriber is “the person who pays the bills or needs the line in order to receive other calls.” Osorio, 746 F.3d 1251. Similarly, the FCC recently defined “called party” as “the subscriber, i.e., the consumer assigned the telephone number dialed and billed for the call, or the non-subscriber customary user of a telephone number included in a family or business calling plan.” In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. at 8000-01.
Defendants point out that Plaintiff used the -6140 number as her residential line for years and also listed it as the phone number for LFJ on her 1999 application to incorporate the church. (Doc. # 97 at 11-12). These facts, while undisputed, are not directly relevant to whether Plaintiff is the “subscriber,” that is, the person who pays the bills for the number or who is the customary user of the number. Osorio, 746 F.3d 1251; In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. at 8000-01.
Plaintiff testified that the bill for the -6140 number goes to her daughter Melissa, because she is on a family plan, but that Plaintiff pays her part of the bill. (Pl. Dep. at 24). Plaintiff also testified that she uses the phone both for herself and for LFJ, for which she is the pastor. (Id. at 43). Because Defendants cite no evidence indicating that another person pays the bills or is the customary user of the -6140 number, Defendants fail to create an issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff is “the called party” under 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A).
Because there is no evidence that Plaintiff, herself, provided prior express consent, the remaining question is whether Newsome consented on Plaintiff’s behalf. In particular, Defendants must establish that Newsome had authority to consent on Plaintiff’s behalf, and that Newsome did, in fact, consent. Osorio, 746 F.3d at 1252. Defendants argue that disputed issues of material fact exist sufficient to preclude summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. The Court disagrees.
Taking Defendants’ version of the facts as true, Newsome may have confirmed Plaintiff’s cell phone number to Sallie Mae (a point that Plaintiff vehemently disputes). Under Florida law, however, Newsome’s conduct is not sufficient to create an apparent agency relationship absent some evidence that Plaintiff tolerated, allowed, or acknowledged Newsome’s conduct.
Accordingly, Defendants fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether any of the 727 calls were made with Plaintiff’s prior express consent. As already noted, Defendants do not otherwise dispute that these 727 calls constitute violations of the TCPA. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants’ liability on the TCPA claims (Counts I and III) is granted.
If you or a loved one is receiving calls from Navient to collect on a student loan, then please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation

Related Tags: FDCPA, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, FCRA, Fair Credit Reporting Act ,TCPA, telephone consumer protection act, auto dial calls, robo dial calls, robo dialers, California debt harassment attorney, san diego debt harassment attorney, riverside debt harassment attorney, orange county debt harassment attorney, Navient, Navient Corp., Sallie Mae, Navient harassment

Jared Hartman, Esq Posted on April 13th, 2016
It has become increasingly commonplace in our society for credit reports and credit scores to be a primary driving force behind our ability to freely live and work in the U.S. From buying a car to buying a home, obtaining student loans, obtaining a line of credit to purchase home computer equipment, to leasing a fancy smartphone, and to even obtaining a job in many work-fields, our society has turned to one that thrives on accurate credit reporting. It has even resulted in potential employers and landlords perceiving our level of responsibility and trustworthiness as being contingent upon information contained within our credit reports. Many people don’t realize is that even criminal background checks can be conducted through a credit report public records section.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that we must have accurate information on our credit reports. In order to have an accurate credit score, the information reported on each account must be accurate. What might come as a surprise, however, is that it is frighteningly common for mistakes to occur in the system of generating information drive by numerical codes and syntax. All it takes is for one person to punch the wrong number in a code, and the output comes out drastically wrong. Or the computer system misreads the syntax, and suddenly two people have their individualized information mixed with each other erroneously.

On April 10, 2016, “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver”, a frightening—albeit comical—presentation was provided to emphasize just how important this topic has become in our every-day lives. You can watch the video here:

In order for a potential employer or landlord to obtain an accurate assumption of our levels of responsibility and trustworthiness as individuals, the information reported on each account must be accurate. Even the slightest wrong comment in the wrong section (for instance, adding “settled for less than full balance” as opposed to “settled for full balance”) can have a dramatic consequence.

Therefore, you as the individual should be diligent in reviewing your own credit reports on a regular basis. It is not acceptable anymore to just ignore what is on your credit report and assume it is all accurate anyway. You may be harmed without even realizing it. For instance, you may be paying a higher interest rate on your private student loans and credit cards or car loans based on inaccurate information that you don’t even know is on your report. Don’t ignore it…you should check your reports every few weeks just to make sure nothing has changed and everything is accurate.

As always, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and answer any questions you may have. If something seems wrong, you should ask what to do about it. We know the right method for lodging written disputes and we are happy to point you in the right direction and answer your questions. And if your rights have been violated, then we are ready and able to pursue action if necessary.

Related Tags: FCRA, fair credit reporting act, credit reporting violations, inaccurate credit report, credit disputes, john oliver, last week tonight, equifax, experian, trans union

Jared Hartman, Esq Posted on March 23, 2016
On March 1, 2016, Huffington Post Chief Financial and Regulatory Correspondent Shahien Nasiripour published an article that alleges the public was misled about whether Navient Corp. (under its former name Sallie Mae) violated the U.S. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by intentionally and systematically overcharging troops on student loans for nearly a decade by failing to lower interest rates to 6% as required by the federal law. Nasiripuor writes that an internal investigation shows, “In Navient’s case, the department improperly credited the company for modifying some troops’ loans when records show that the interest rate reductions had been backdated.” He further writes,”DOJ data strongly suggested that the Education Department missed thousands of violations of federal law when it publicly exonerated Navient” and “In November, another official at the federal consumer bureau said that hundreds of thousands of troops have been forced to make at least $100 million in student loan interest payments that they actually were exempt from.”

Mr. Nasiripour’s March 1, 2016 article can be read by clicking here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/education-department-misled-public-on-student-loan-contractors-probe_us_56d5d2a7e4b0bf0dab337e33.

Previously, on February 7, 2016, Mr. Nasiripour published an article that quotes current Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton as stating that Navient Corp. is “doing some really terrible things” by “misleading” borrowers, and that Navient’s “behavior is outrageous” and she is “totally appalled” by the company. To put these statements into context, Nasiripour further wrote,

“Numerous government agencies have been investigating the nation’s largest student loan specialist over several years for allegedly overcharging borrowers and mistreating them in violation of the law. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in August told Navient, which collects borrowers’ monthly payments and counsels them on their repayment options, that it had amassed enough evidence to indicate the company violated consumer protection laws, and it might sue the company in court.”

Additionally, “New York state’s banking regulator and a group of state attorneys general are among the authorities probing Navient’s interactions with borrowers, such as its practice of threatening to seize assets from borrowers in good standing simply because a co-signer of their loan had died.”

Mr. Nasiripour’s March 1, 2016 article can be read by clicking here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-navient_us_56b7a886e4b01d80b246b214

If you or a loved one are experiencing unfairness, harassment, or oppression from Navient Corp., please do not hesitate to contact us for a free, confidential consultation to discuss whether your rights may have been violated.

Related Tags: FDCPA, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, FCRA, Fair Credit Reporting Act ,TCPA, telephone consumer protection act, auto dial calls, robo dial calls, robo dialers, California debt harassment attorney, san diego debt harassment attorney, riverside debt harassment attorney, orange county debt harassment attorney, Navient, Navient Corp., Sallie Mae

Jared Hartman, Esq Posted on February 25, 2016
It can be a very intimidating and worrisome experience to be the subject of debt collectors’ aggressive tactics. It is common to experience nervousness, fear, worry, fluttering of the heart with a rise in heart rate and blood pressure, and if the debt collector treats you with indignity you may also feel emotions of anger, embarrassment, shame, and fear. It is common in the debt collection industry for debt collectors to deliberately force their victims into paying the debt by invoking these feelings. The reasoning is that you are more likely to pay the debt if you feel uncomfortable by the interaction, thinking that if you pay them then they will go away. But you do have rights! As is clear from other blog articles on our website, you have the right to be protected from abuse, harassment, oppression, lies, and misrepresentations! Don’t take this lightly, your rights are powerful and you can use them as a shield to deflect the abuse.

The Fair Trade Commission (FTC) has recently put out some very helpful blog articles with videos to explain your rights. In one article, the FTC empowers people to stand up against scam artists. These FTC articles can be found here: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/stand-fake-debt-collectors and https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0258-fake-debt-collectors.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of criminals out there that are more than happy to lie about who they are when they pretend to be a legit debt collector, but in reality they are simply trying to take your money through extortion. The most common trick by these con artists is to lie about suing you when there really is no lawsuit pending, and also to lie about police looking for you for committing fraud when in reality failing to pay a debt is a civil breach of contract matter and not a criminal violation. Many times, these con artists also get your employers’ information from public records and credit report inquiries, and they call your place of employment to spread these lies to your boss and co-workers in order to put pressure on you.

The FTC empowers consumers by giving the following advice:

Ask the caller for his name, company, street address, and telephone number. Tell the caller you won’t discuss any debt until you get a written “validation notice.” If the caller refuses, don’t pay.
Put your request in writing. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires any debt collector to stop calling if you ask in writing. Of course, if the debt is real, sending such a letter does not get rid of the debt, but it should stop the contact.
Don’t give or confirm any personal, financial, or other sensitive information.
Contact your creditor. If a debt is legitimate – but you think the collector isn’t — contact the company to which you owe the money.
Report the call. File a complaint with the FTC and your state Attorney General’s office with information about suspicious callers
If you are the subject of debt collection efforts by a legit debt collector, then you still have rights! We find the most common examples of debt collection abuse by legit debt collectors are when they misrepresent the amount you owe, try to collect interest and fees that they are not entitled to, threaten lawsuits when the debt is already barred by statute of limitations, calling at inconvenient times and/or calling with such frequency that the calls are harassing, and inaccurate credit reporting. If you are the subject of debt collection efforts, then you should still take steps to protect yourself by asking for details of who they are, where they are calling from, how did they acquire the debt, when did they acquire the debt, and from whom did they acquire the debt. The FTC has also put out an article giving similar advice, which can be found here: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0149-debt-collection.

In addition to the above, you should also not hesitate to contact a consumer protection attorney, such as us at Semnar & Hartman, LLP, for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and to see if a lawsuit can be filed on your behalf.

Related Tags: FDCPA, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, FCRA, Fair Credit Reporting Act ,TCPA, telephone consumer protection act, auto dial calls, robo dial calls, robo dialers, California debt harassment attorney, san diego debt harassment attorney, riverside debt harassment attorney, orange county debt harassment attorney

Jared Hartman, Esq Posted on January 15, 2016
Imagine a bank—such as Wells Fargo—contacts you and claims you owe them money on a credit card that you’ve never heard of. You ask some questions about the time and location of the application, and you discover that, indeed, this account was opened in your name fraudulently. You tell Wells Fargo’s agents that you never opened this account and you have been the victim of identity theft. However, they ignore your complaints and persists in calling you in an attempt to collect. You are now facing the very real future of continued harassing calls, threatening letters, potential debt collection lawsuits against you, potential wage garnishments and bank levies, and potential negative credit reporting against your name and social security number. All over an account that you never opened. What do you do? How do you protect yourself?

In California, consumers who are the victims of identity theft are actually protected by law from debt collection activity upon the account opened under identity theft, but you cannot just sit idly by and hope everything falls into place. You must take action, and we at Semnar & Hartman, LLP are experienced in helping!!

Under California Code 1798.92-1798.93, if you or a loved one have been the victim of identity theft, you can bring a lawsuit against a debt collector or bank that is claiming they are owed money upon the fraudulent account in order to have a judicial finding (called declaratory relief) that you are not liable upon the account. In connection with such a lawsuit, you can request a court order (called an injunction) that the debt collector or bank stop trying to collect from you, and you can also have the court order that any security interest (such as a car title loan or home mortgage loan) is void and unenforceable. Moreover, if the bank or debt collector has filed a lawsuit against you, you can file a counter claim against them seeking dismissal of their lawsuit in addition to declaratory relief and an injunction.

In order to recover attorneys’ fees, costs of litigation, actual damages, however, you have to put them on written notice of the identity theft and provide them a copy of either a police report or DMV report showing that you lodged a formal report as a victim of identity theft. You have to provide this written notice and the police report to the address identified by the creditor as being their address for processing identity theft claims. You have to also wait 30 days after providing such notice before filing suit. If they have failed to diligently investigate the claim and persisted in their efforts to collect despite your compliance with all of the above, then you may also be able to recover a statutory penalty against them for up to $30,000.00 in addition to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of litigation.

A sample complaint against Wells Fargo for this very type of allegation can be found by clicking here.

There are other laws under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act that protect your credit reports from suffering derogatory accounts opened under identity theft and fraud, that prevent new fraudulently accounts from being reported, that require the credit reporting agencies to remove accounts that have been identified by you as identity theft, and place a freeze on your credit and prevents new accounts from being opened entirely. However, these laws require their own steps to be taken by you and will be reported under a different article. We are experienced in handling these claims as well.

We can help you protect yourself!!! Do not hesitate to contact us immediately for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and to see how we can help.

Related Tags: wells fargo harassment, wells fargo, debt harassment, identity theft, california identity theft statute, ID theft, identity theft protection

Jared Hartman, Esq Posted on January 12, 2016
We have talked a lot in other articles about how your attorneys’ fees can be awarded for successful prosecutions of actions under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Sometimes people ask what this means and how are they awarded by the court.

It is not every case that allows for the court to award attorneys’ fees, because typically the court only rules upon a motion for attorneys’ fees after the consumer (our client) wins on the merits. The majority of cases settle for a specific lump sum of money, from which the attorneys will normally take a percentage on a contingency fee basis as their fees. However, if your case goes to trial and you win a verdict in your favor, or if your case is won pre-trial on motion for summary judgment, then the law requires that the creditor or collector who violated your rights to pay your attorneys’ fees by order of the court (unless they decide to settle for a specific amount of fees).

In some cases, and more rarely, the creditor or debt collector against whom the lawsuit was brought might agree to a settlement whereby the consumer (our client) is awarded a specific amount of damages and then our attorneys’ fees and costs are to be decided by the court.

In the attached example that you can read here, the defendants Western Dental Services and their debt collector Herbert P. Sears Company, Inc. did exactly that. They agreed that our client would be awarded a specific, but confidential, sum of money with our attorneys’ fees and costs being decided by motion to the court.

The total amount awarded by the court was $65,277.28 for attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation. This was based on what is called the “lodestar” calculation, which requires the court to simply calculate a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours expended by the attorneys in order to come up with the total amount to be awarded.

However, it is often not clear how the attorneys are awarded a certain hourly rate. The lodestar method typically requires the court to look at what is an average hourly rate for other attorneys in the same jurisdiction as the court where the case was filed with similar experience as the attorney whose motion is pending. It is common in the consumer rights area for the courts to rely on the U.S. Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report that is prepared every couple of years in order to document the average salary for consumer attorneys in each region and territory within the United States, mostly based on experience level and years of practice. The 2013-2014 version of this survey was prepared by Ronald L. Burdge, Esq., and can be found on the National Consumer Law Center’s website at https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/litigation/fee-survey-report-2013-2014.pdf.

The court ruling got to the total amount of $65,277.28 by adding the reasonable costs of litigation to the total hourly amounts awarded to Jared M. Hartman at $349.00 per hour and Babak Semnar at $425.00 per hour in connection with their prosecution of claims under the Federal and Rosenthal FDCPA and California credit reporting act.

If you or a loved one are concerned about whether your rights have been violated by a debt collector, creditor, bank, or credit reporting agency, please do not hesitate to call us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your case might fall within one of the areas of law that allow us to pursue our attorneys’ fees in a similar manner.

Related Tags: FDCPA, Rosenthal, credit reporting, san diego debt harassment, orange county debt harassment, los angeles debt harassment, riverside debt harassment, debt collection, credit reporting violations, inaccurate credit reporting, lodestar, attorneys fees, western dental, herbert p sears company