There's a discussion on another board entitled "$1,000 per VIOLATION, or per ACTION?". It turns out that FDCPA states: 813(a)(2)(A): in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1000; Which pretty much says that if you file an action for a whole pile of violations that occur over time, you don't get any more value than filing for a single violation, unless the court has pity on you and throws out a big punative award (that's highly subject to being overturned on appeal). Frankly, in all my reading of stuff about FCRA and FDCPA, I have never noticed this issue ever addressed! It could explain why I've had such a doggone hard time finding any lawyers to take on a case for me. Man, this basically gives CRAs, CAs, and related parties a virtually unlimited license to do as they please, with the worst statutory penalty being only $1000. Sheesh. When you combine this with the one-year SOL on FDCPA violations, it's pretty clear that Congress didn't really intend for consumers to get much leverage out of this statute. (FCRA has a two-year SOL, which is a little better.) I have a CA who has failed to respond to three separate demands for validation, beginning back in January 2006 when they first contacted me. In spite of the requirement that they refrain from further collection actions until they provide validation, they continued to send me monthly "bills" for 12 months, and some time last August (one year ago) they started posting a neg TL to my credit profile with all three CRAs which they've been updating on a monthly basis. They have also "validated" inquiries from the CRAs generated by my disputes with the CRAs. Yet, they have never validated with me. 809(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, ... the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt ... until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt ... and a copy of such verification ... is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Technically speaking, the FDCPA violations started 18 months ago, but the FCRA violations started 1 year ago. So I'm curious ... Given the 1-year SOL and $1000/action limitations, what would happen if I were to file an action now for the violations that occurred one year ago? And then another action next month for the FDCPA violations that happened a year before that? And so on? IOW, is there something "against the rules" with filing separate actions for separate distinct violations incurred by the same CA at different times? Would this be considered any kind of "abuse of the legal process"? Is anybody aware of such cases or rulings?
A cause for action is The facts that give rise to a lawsuit or a legal claim.. If they don't provide notice: cause. If the don't validate but continue to collect: cause. etc. At least that's where I would start. I suppose you could inflate that to claiming a cause for everytime you read your credit report and saw the collection entry and let the opposing counsel and/or judge sort it out or take the opposite and much more generous approach of treating one account as a single cause. In the end it comes down to the judge (or your out-of-court settlement). So, in the grand scheme of civil litigation, this isn't likely to be a big profit maker for a law firm because: a) This only affects a very small portion of the population (although that portion may grow as more and more old debts are being packaged for resale) b) 99% of the public doesn't know their rights in this situation and beacuse of that does stupid things like say "sure, I'll pay if you just go away and leave me alone" or "can I make payments?" c) of the 1% that does, I'd guess that maybe half of those keep a sufficient paper trail that would support a case in court (remember the side with the most documentation wins). d) and of the remaining fraction that do win a settlement, the maximum award in all but the most egregious cases would be $1,000 statutory, some actual (you'd have to stretch to show actual damages, but let's say $1,000 for the pain and suffering of having a bad credit score) and some "reasonable" attorney's fees as determined by the judge (let's say another $1,000 to be generous). So, after months of motions, discovery, etc. etc. you might walk out of court with $3,000 and the lawyer might get to take $1,000 or $1,500 back to the firm. Unless you can show a steady stream of these cases (which are really, pretty easy to prosecute if you get your system going), this isn't going to make much of a dent in the revenue side of things. Granted some law firms DO do this, but there are plenty of bigger legal fish to fry. My guess is that this is a good "loss-leader" to get new clients into the firm. Help 'em with their collection agent today then their will tomorrow, and maybe a big juicy divorce in a couple of years...
I've read an article saying that consumers filing federal lawsuits against debt collectors with only one, two or three violations then doing it again just about every time the collectors violate is a growing problem with the courts in California. The problem is of course, the low payouts from each case. So in order to get around that some consumers file a new lawsuit just about every time the debt collector violates. Apparently this is causing the courts a lot of extra work and of course they don't like that at all. I know of several people who have filed multiple lawsuits against debt collectors but always got more than the $1,000 per case. One man I know very well has filed 5 cases against debt collectors and won every time. He always gets much more than $1,000. I don't know what the most he has ever collected might be because of non disclosure agreements but I know that it is well over $8,000. He is now getting ready to go to local courts over the installation of a lawn sprinkler system for his new home. They installed the sprinkler system and then billed him before he even owned the house, yet they put a lien on his house after he owned it. It is a really screwed up mess. I know of another person who has filed 40 federal lawsuits and lost only one. So it really isn't limited to just the $1,000 as most are led to believe. It is what you can get out of them in the settlement phase. They don't want to actually go to court if they can keep from it so will settle for more than the $1,000 just to keep from going to court. On the other hand, you can't demand $5,000,000 damages as Craig Cunningham of El Paso has done against both Experian and a debt collector and expect to get even 1/10th of that. I seriously doubt that Experian will ever pay him a crying dime but the debt collectors might end up havng to pay him something. Maybe as much $5,000 but more likely even half that much each. It will be interesting indeed to see how those cases work out. But he certainly has to put on a much better case than he put on against me when he sued me for $1,040,000 and couldn't prove any damages whatever.
I'm not trying to devise this as some kind of business strategy; I'm not even a lawyer. It's just that I've got a CA who's incurred 50 FCRA+FDCPA violations so far in 18 months. If I name them all in one action then I might get a few grand. If I just start filing one action per month with the items that happened in the month just before SOL, that could go one for a while and net me more.
I tend to think that might be a bit fast. Can you afford to spend $350 a month for what might become a year or more before you get any money back out of it? And while the court may or may not realize what you were doing the debt collector certainly would and would notice the court and demand that they all be consolidated anyway. I tend to think you would be far better off to use a few more violations and get one case settled before starting against the same collector. I seriously doubt that you could realistically keep up with more than or two suits anyway because one of the things they will probably try to do is bury you in paperwork and delays. Many cases are won that way, by burying the other side in paperwork until they just give up. So keeping up with their paperwork while doing the same to them would make so many lawsuits as you are contemplating unpractical. And if you have to earn a living in the meantime you really would have problems. There is often a wide gap between what sounds good and what is practical.
