Teng v. Metropolitan Retail Recovery Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant Citibank is not a “debt collector” within the purview of the FDCPA because it is not in the business of professional debt collections
• discussing Congress’s concern for emotional harms that violations of the FDCPA, by their very nature, may be expected to cause
• dismissing FDCPA claim against Citibank because it was the creditor, even though separate “debt collectors” attempted to collect money from plaintiff
• finding collection agency and its employees, jointly and severally, for violations of FDCPA because each was, in their own right, a “debt collector” without regard to their employment status
• defendant who made actionable phone called could be held personally liable for FDCPA violation
• super-visor of firm’s collection activities is a debt collector

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).