David Alibrandi, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Financial Outsourcing Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that lender’s agent’s self‐identification as a debt 3 collector in communication to borrower was relevant to whether lender 4 considered the loan in default
• finding that the inclusion of FDCPA warnings, albeit not conclusive, evidenced that the debt collector believed itself to be undertaking debt collection
• finding that the inclusion of FDCPA warnings, albeit not conclusive, evidenced that the debt collector believed itself to be undertaking debt collection
• determining that “the classification of debt collector depends upon the status of a debt [as owed or in default], rather than the type of collection activities used.”
• noting that the FDCPA excepts from the definition of a “debt collector” someone who attempts to collect “ ‘a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person’ ” (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii)) (emphasis in original)
• noting, for various kinds of debts, pre-default periods of 30, 90, 180, and 270 days set by federal regulation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).