Hemmingsen v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “the FDCPA exempted any attorney-at-law collecting a debt in the name of a client from the statutory definition of debt collector”
• finding that alleged false statements in summary judgment pleadings were outside of the scope of the FDCPA
• explaining there are “diverse situations in which potential FDCPA claims may arise during the course of litigation”
• rejecting a district court’s “broad ruling that false statements not made directly to a consumer debtor are never actionable” under the FDCPA
• nothing false or misleading about attorney filing an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment
• declining to adopt a blanket rule that communications to debtor’s counsel can never violate the conduct-regulating provisions of the FDCPA because “[d]ebt collector lawyers make representations to debtors’ attorneys in a wide variety of situations”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).