Christine Wade, F/k/a Christine Snow v. Regional Credit Association, a California Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a letter did not violate § 1692f because it was “relatively innocuous, and not ‘unconscionable’ in either a legal or lay sense”
• holding that even where a collection effort violates state law, it does not violate the FDCPA where there is no threat of litigation
• holding that a debt collector cannot be held liable for including statutorily required notices
• holding that the defendant’s attempts to collect, “although apparently in violation of state law, were innocuous and not in violation of the FDCPA” because they did not threaten to sue, and thus did not violate §§ 1692e, 1692e(5), or 1692e(10)
• holding 4 “[w]here a district court dismisses a federal claim, leaving only state claims for resolution, 5 it should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice”
• holding 7 that “[w]here a district court dismisses a federal claim, leaving only state claims for resolution, it should 8 decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).