Masuda v. Thomas Richards & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no FDCPA violation where an envelope contained language reading “PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL” and “Forwarding and Address Correction Requested”
• under the FDCPA, before an attorney signs a dunning letter, the attorney must review the debtor’s file and have some knowledge about the alleged debt
• same where attorney did not review debtor’s files and did not decide whether to send her collection letters
• “The language about which Masuda complains does not raise [the FDCPA] concerns” at issue in Rutyna

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).