Sykes v. Mel Harris and Associates, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that allegations of litigation-related misconduct in debt collection fell under sham exception to Noerr-Pennington doctrine
• concluding class plaintiffs who did not receive notice before default judgment was entered adequately pleaded equitable tolling in an FDCPA class action against defendants who failed to serve them and filed false affidavits of service and merit
• rejecting defendants' argument that, under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, they had a First Amendment right to file time-barred lawsuits to collect debts
• finding the “incurring of legal costs” to defend against Defendant’s actions constitutes sufficient injury
• finding “the filing of a debt collection action ... supported by affidavits that contained false or deceptive representations about the status and character of the debt” may violate 1692e, and “could also be deemed ‘unfair or unconscionable’ in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f”
• complaint plausibly alleged RICO enterprise comprised of debt-buying company, debt collection agency, process service company, and others

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).