CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Citibank, N.A.

James Williams, a pro se plaintiff, filed claims against Citibank N.A. and Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., alleging unlawful debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), breach of contract, and fraud. The claims stemmed from actions related to two credit card accounts, where Plaintiff contended an inadvertent 50-cent underpayment led to a significant APR increase and aggressive collection efforts. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims except for breach of contract. The Court dismissed the federal FDCPA claim, ruling that the Citibank entities were creditors and not 'debt collectors' as defined by the FDCPA. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint to attempt to establish the applicability of the FDCPA’s 'false name exception'. The remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, with potential reconsideration if a viable FDCPA claim is presented.

FDCPADebt CollectionCreditorMotion to DismissPro Se PlaintiffBreach of ContractFraudFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsAmended Complaint
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Somin v. Total Community Management Corp.

Plaintiff Ilene Somin initiated an action alleging wrongful mortgage foreclosure and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against Washington Mutual Bank and Shapiro & DiCaro, LLP, alongside various state law claims against multiple defendants. The primary defendants, Washington Mutual Bank and Shapiro & DiCaro, LLP, moved to dismiss the FDCPA claims. They argued the claims were barred by the FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations and that Washington Mutual Bank was not a 'debt collector' as defined by the Act. The court granted the motions to dismiss, concluding that Somin's FDCPA claims were indeed time-barred, as her interactions with the defendants concluded more than a year before the lawsuit began. Furthermore, the court determined that Washington Mutual Bank, as a creditor collecting its own debt, did not fall under the FDCPA's definition of a debt collector. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal FDCPA claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, resulting in the dismissal of the entire case.

Mortgage ForeclosureFDCPAStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingDebt CollectionDismissalFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCreditorSuccessor in Interest
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1998

Finnegan v. University of Rochester Medical Center

The plaintiff, whose name is not stated, was treated at the University of Rochester Medical Center’s Strong Memorial Hospital from February to June 1995, accruing over $50,000 in bills. Plaintiff claims the Hospital agreed to forbear collection until his Social Security disability appeal was resolved, but then allegedly reneged by sending the account to collection agencies Rochester Credit Center, Inc. (RCC) and CBC Companies, Inc. (CBA) and reporting negative credit information. Plaintiff sued the Hospital for violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), New York General Business Law, breach of contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also sued RCC and CBA for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), New York General Business Law Article 29-H, and negligence. The court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the FCBA claim, dismissing its state law claims without prejudice. The court denied RCC and CBA's motions to dismiss the FDCPA and negligence claims but granted their motions to dismiss the New York General Business Law Article 29-H claim.

Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA)Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)Motions to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionConsumer CreditDebt CollectionCredit ReportingNegligenceBreach of ContractNew York General Business Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC

Plaintiff Johnson Poku Okyere brought claims against Todd Houslanger, Houslanger and Associates, PLLC (Houslanger Defendants), Palisades Collection, LLC, and Ronald Moses (a New York City Marshal) for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and conversion. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the claims. The court found that Okyere's allegations regarding the failure to file a notice of substitution of attorneys and the retention of funds did not constitute FDCPA violations, as the statute's relevant section prohibits threats of illegal action, not the action itself, and misrepresentations must be made to the debtor directly. Consequently, the FDCPA claims were dismissed with prejudice. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law conversion claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

FDCPAFair Debt Collection Practices ActDebt CollectionConversionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(c)Vicarious LiabilityAttorney-Client RelationshipState Law Claims
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galveston County Fair & Rodeo v. Kauffman

Travis Kauffman entered his steer "Reebok" in The Galveston County Fair and Rodeo steer show. After winning a class, the steer was later disqualified due to allegations of "airing," an unethical fitting practice. Daniel S. Kauffman, Jr., Travis's father, sued the Fair alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. A jury found in favor of Kauffman on all claims, with recovery elected under the DTPA. The Fair appealed, challenging aspects of the jury charge, evidence sufficiency, damages, consumer status under DTPA, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting a $1,500 damage award related to negligence.

DTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActNegligenceBreach of ContractSteer DisqualificationAnimal Show EthicsConsumer ProtectionAppellate ReviewDamagesMental Anguish
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Midpoint Resolution Group, LLC

Plaintiff Sharon Miller sued Midpoint Resolution Group, LLC for multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging false threats, unauthorized electronic debits, and threats of criminal prosecution. The case, initially referred for pre-trial matters, eventually proceeded to a bench trial to determine damages and attorney's fees. The court found Midpoint liable for repeated FDCPA violations and awarded Ms. Miller $500 in actual damages, $1,000 in statutory damages, $7,000 in attorney's fees, and $1,132.50 in costs, totaling $9,632.50. The court noted the plaintiff's limited success on her claim for substantial actual damages but emphasized the importance of a fee award sufficient to deter similar abusive debt collection practices in the future.

Fair Debt Collection Practices ActFDCPA ViolationsActual DamagesStatutory DamagesAttorney's FeesEmotional DistressDebt Collection AbuseUnauthorized DebitsThreats of Criminal ProsecutionMagistrate Judge Decision
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Gorden v. Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C.

This case involves a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Yvette Van Gorden against Defendant Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant's debt collection letter for a Walmart credit card debt was unclear regarding the distinction between requests for debt verification and the original creditor's name and address. Initially, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due to the Defendant's failure to oppose, finding an FDCPA violation. However, the Plaintiff's counsel failed to submit proposed damages, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. The Plaintiff subsequently moved for relief from this dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) due to a clerical error by counsel. The Court denied this motion, asserting that an attorney's mistake is not a valid ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), although the plaintiff is not precluded from re-filing the action.

FDCPADebt CollectionSummary JudgmentRule 60(b)(1)Attorney MistakeClerical ErrorDismissal Without PrejudiceFederal ProcedureConsumer LawStatutory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larsen v. JBC Legal Group, P.C.

The plaintiff, Kimberley Larsen, filed a class action lawsuit against JBC Legal Group, P.C., and other defendants under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Larsen alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA by sending a misleading collection letter attempting to collect debts from New York consumers. The plaintiff defined two classes, Class A and Class B, based on different alleged FDCPA violations. Larsen moved for permission to move simultaneously for summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, or alternatively, for Rule 23(b)(2) class certification, primarily to shift the cost of notice to the defendants. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for simultaneous summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, citing Supreme Court precedent that typically requires the plaintiff to bear the cost of notice. The court also indicated that Rule 23(b)(2) certification is unlikely to be granted in FDCPA cases in the Second Circuit.

FDCPAClass ActionSummary JudgmentClass CertificationRule 23(b)(3)Rule 23(b)(2)Cost of NoticeFair Debt CollectionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDebt Collection Practices
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,316 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational