240 F. Supp. 2d 233 - Lerner v. Forster’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692E (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692G (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P. · Chance v. Armstrong · Clomon v. Jackson · Leonard v. Israel Discount Bank of New York the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is particularly significant that the challenged language in this matter does not require payment “immediately.” It merely requests a phone call. A demand for payment within less than the thirty-day timeframe necessarily requires the debtor to forego the statutory right to challenge the debt in writing within thirty days, or suffer the consequences. For this reason, requiring a payment that would eliminate the debt before the debtor can challenge the validity of that debt directly conflicts with the protections for debtors set forth in section 1692g. The request that the debtor telephone the collection agency does not contradict the admonition that the debtor has thirty days to contest the validity of the debt. This language simply encourages the debtor to communicate with the debt collection agency. It does not threaten or encourage the least sophisticated debtor to waive his statutory right to challenge the validity of the debt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The prevailing standard used by courts to determine whether a defendant has violated the FDCPA is well-established: the standard is objective and is based on how the 'least sophisticated consumer’ would interpret language contained in the debt collection letter itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.