Easterling v. Collecto, 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 the plaintiff stated a claim arising under the FDCPA where a collection letter could have hypothetically affected her decision-making regarding the debt
• concluding that collection letter's statement that debt was \ 'ineligible for bankruptcy discharge' \ was false because plaintiff \at all times fully retained her right to seek bankruptcy discharge\
• collection letter violated section 1692e due to its “capacity to discourage debtors from fully availing themselves of their legal rights”
• “Whether a collection letter is false, deceptive, or misleading under the FDCPA is determined from the perspective of the objective least sophisticated consumer.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Whether a collection letter is false, deceptive, or misleading under the FDCPA is determined from the perspective of the objective least sophisticated consumer.” (quotation marks omitted)
• “Whether a collection letter is false, deceptive, or misleading under the FDCPA is determined from the perspective of the objective least sophisticated consumer.” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).