Cox v. Hilco Receivables, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing a § 1692e(5) claim because defendants “did .not threaten to take action, but actually took it”
• “[A] letter falsely stating that Hilco is owed Cox’s debt, sent in order to collect on that debt, clearly qualifies as the use of a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt in violation of § 1692e(10).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).