Dillon v. Riffel-Kuhlmann

How courts have described this case

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

• finding “no support for the proposition that pursuing a collection action without serving the debtor constitutes a violation of the FDCPA” where “the record clearly show[ed] that” the process server in fact personally served the plaintiff.
• “Failure to comply with service of process . . . does not ‘provide[ ] a legal basis to sustain a claim that the FDCPA has been violated.” (quoting Pierce v. Steven T. Rosso, P.A., No. 01-00124, 2001 WL 34624006, at (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2001))
• “Failure to comply with service of process . . . does not ‘provide[ ] a legal basis to sustain a claim that the FDCPA has been violated.” (quoting Pierce v. Steven T. Rosso, P.A., No. 01-124, 2001 WL 34624006, at (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2001))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).