Jeffrey Lox v. CDA Limited

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where a letter is not in the third category, the plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment without extrinsic evidence
• holding that a misleading statement was material where it could lead a debtor to believe that it would be costlier to contest a debt or delay a payment, and thus could have “led to a decision to pay a debt that he would have preferred to contest”
• explaining that materiality is an element of a § 1692e claim
• noting a false statement would be material “if the rate of 6 interest were misstated”
• noting the requirement that plaintiffs present extrinsic evidence when a case falls in to the second Ruth category
• noting the requirement that plaintiffs present extrinsic evidence when a case falls in to the second Ruth category

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).