Cruz Ex Rel. Cruz v. International Collection Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that appellants waived an argument by failing to raise it in their opening brief
• holding that debt collector’s letter violated § 1692c(c) after plaintiff stated that “I dispute this debt and refuse to pay”
• explaining that the employee of debt collector may be held liable for violations of FDCPA if the employee independently meets the definition of the term “debt collector”
• explaining that the employee of a debt collector may be held liable for violations of the FDCPA if the employee independently meets the definition of the term \debt collector\
• noting that circuit courts addressing individual liability under the FDCPA “have focused primarily on... whether or not an officer of a debt collection company meets the definition of debt collector”
• ruling in favor of a substituted plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).