Debt Collection (FDCPA)  

Rosenau v. Unifund, 539 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008)
In case of first impression, federal court of appeals holds that a collector’s use of the term “Legal Department” to send dunning letters  may be deceptive under federal law where no lawyer was involved. 

Davis v. Riddle & Associates, P.C., No. 07-cv-0284 (LDD) (E.D. Pa. filed Sept. 5, 2008) (approving class action settlement)
Class settlement involving Utah debt collection law firm that referred to “Litigation” in seeking to collect time-barred, 16 year old PECO debt.

Brown v. Card Service Center, 464 F.3d 450 (3d Cir. 2006) 
Federal court of appeals holds it deceptive under federal consumer laws to suggest that a  collection account “could be referred” to a lawyer where it is seldom or never done.

McCall v. Drive Financial Services, L.P. & Drive G.P., LLC., 440 F.Supp.2d 388 (E.D. Pa  2006)
In case of first impression, federal court holds that classwide award is not necessarily capped at the $1000 per person individual ceiling.  Suit charged Texas subprime auto finance company with sending out dunning letters over phony signature of a lawyer, certified, then settled with per class member payout over $1300.

Rosenberg v. Academy Collection Services, Inc., No.04-cv-5585 (JP) (E.D. Pa. filed Jan 26, 2007) (class certification order)
Class action certified in case where debt collector mailed out letters to consumers in which the phrase “Your Delinquent account” could be seen through the window of the envelope.

Hage v. General Service Bureau, 2002 WL 1796575 (D.Neb.  Aug. 5, 2002)  
Nearly $500,000 in refunds mailed to Nebraska consumers from class settlement over debt collector (over)charging fees and costs not authorized.

Tenuto v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 2000 WL 1470213 (E.D.  Pa. Sept. 29, 2000)
(FDCPA class certified), later op., Tenuto, 2001 WL 1347235 (E.D.  Pa. Oct. 31, 2001).
Class settlement of nearly $500,000 to Pennsylvania consumers where debt collector sent out dunning letters threatening “wage garnishment” where PA law does not allow garnishment of wages.

Consumer Fraud

Sabol v. Meenan Security Services, No. 03-04502 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pls. Delaware Co. filed Oct. 8, 2004) (final approval of class action settlement)
Suit against a home-security firm who refused to let a consumer cancel without penalty despite the alarm going off needlessly.  The agency failed to comply with Pennsylvania’s tough rules on in-home sales.  Delaware County Court of Common Pleas approved a class settlement worth over $700,000 and the security firm revamped its contract and disclosures.

Identity Theft

Ciccarone v. B.J. Marchese, Inc., No. 03-cv-1660 (NS) (E.D. Pa. filed Dec. 14, 2004) (class action settlement approved)
Class suit against Montgomery County, PA car dealer and its principles who stole identities of prospective and former customers to scam banks and the consumers.  In approving a class settlement valued at over $4.5M, federal judge noted that:  “Counsel for plaintiffs are commercial litigation attorneys from two different law firms with substantial experience in prosecuting and managing class actions.  They are competent, well-qualified and conducted the litigation with forthrightness and vigor.”  Id. at *9.

Consumer Product Warranty

McGee v. Continental Tire North America, Inc., 2007 WL 2462624 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2007)(warranty law claim may be brought in federal court as class case);  2009 WL 539893 (D.N.J. March 4, 2009)(final approval of class settlement)
Nationwide class action suit where consumer’s claim that Continental Tires installed on new Chrysler 300 autos became unserviceable after as little as 5,000 – 10,000 miles of use.  Final approval has been given to a settlement that provides a cash fund of $5 - $8Million plus fees and expenses.   Settlement details  may be found at www.tiresettlement.com  and claims may be filed well into 2010.