Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a “temporary injury” without a “specific loss of money” is “too speculative” to be considered an ascertainable loss under the UTPCPL
• explaining that Congress’s choice to exclude formal pleadings from some FDCPA provisions and not others “suggest[s] that all litigation activities, including formal pleadings, are subject to the FDCPA”
• finding that including “not-yet-incurred fees as due and owing” in a foreclosure complaint could constitute a “conceivabl[e] misrepresent[ation]” within the meaning of Section 1692e sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss
• explaining that \foreclosure meets the broad definition of 'debt collection' under the FDCPA\ and noting that \it is even contemplated in various places in the statute\ while citing § 1692i(a)(1) as an example
• finding that the “most natural reading” of similar language, when viewed “through the lens of the least-sophisticated consumer,” was “that [the lender] was not authorized to collect fees for not-yet-performed legal services and expenses”
• finding rules for state-foreclosure actions were insufficient reason to ignore plain reach of statute, which “[n]owhere ... exclude[s] foreclosure actions from its reach”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).