Rios v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that debtor’s confusion about “various numbers and balances referenced in successive letters and in the state court complaint” did not show “deception” under FDCPA
• concluding that two different internal reference numbers on collection letters were \no cause for confusion\ or \hint of misrepresenta- tion or an attempt by the defendants to collect a sum that [plaintiff] did not legally owe\
• two different internal reference numbers on collection letters presented “no cause for confusion” or “hint of misrepresentation or an attempt by the defendants to collect a sum that [plaintiff] did not legally owe”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).