Brian Bauman v. Bank of America

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that debt collection action was not a compulsory counterclaim to the plaintiff’s claims under the ACT
• holding that a foreclosure claim is not logically related to an FDCPA claim arising out of the underlying debt because the two claims raise different legal issues and have only some overlap in the facts necessary for adjudication
• finding proposed counterclaim seeking cancellation of trademark was compulsory under Rule 13(a)
• outlining the elements for a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)
• differentiating a foreclosure action, which “requires a lender to prove that the debtor is in default and to prove the amount that the debtor owes,” from a FDCPA claim, which “does not focus on the validity of the debt, but instead on the use of unfair methods to collect it”
• “A FDCPA claim, however, does not focus on the validity of the debt, but instead on the use of unfair methods to collect it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).