Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that a voice mail message by a debt collector was not a communication because it contained no information regarding a debt
• ruling that a voice mail message by a debt collector was not a communication because it contained no information regarding a debt
• concluding that 18 messages left by the defendant on the plaintiff’s answering machine constituted 19 communications
• noting FDCPA’s broad definition of “communication,” and its extension to information conveyed “directly or indirectly” through “any medium”
• granting summary judgment on Section 1788.17 claim after granting on FDCPA 4 claim
• “defendant violated 1692d(6) when its employees failed to disclose defendant’s identity and the nature of defendant’s business in the messages left on plaintiffs answering machine”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).