McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \Massachusetts courts have recognized\ that a violation of Chapter 176D \automatically give[s] rise to liability under Chapter 93A\
• noting that “a so-called per se violation is not truly per se, as per se findings satisfy Chapter 93A’s first prong only (i.e., that the conduct at issue is unfair or deceptive)”
• noting that “a so-called per se violation is not truly per se, as per se findings satisfy Chapter 93A’s first prong only (i.e., that the conduct at issue is unfair or deceptive)”
• rejecting defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s 93A claims grounded on FDCPA violations were untimely under the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations because 93A’s four-year limitations period applied
• “Stating an incorrect amount of the debt undeniably violates section 1692e(2)(A).”
• “[A] violation of the FDCPA not only per se violates the FTC Act, it also constitutes a per se Chapter 93A violation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).