Tucker v. CBE Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that despite 57 calls over a 20–day period being “somewhat high,” the conduct still did not violate § 1692(d)(5
• noting that despite 57 calls over a 20-day period being “somewhat high,” the conduct still did not violate § 1692(d)(5
• finding that plaintiff and his counsel unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied proceedings with deliberate indifference after it became clear in discovery that plaintiff’s claims had no factual basis
• finding that the creditor did not violate the FDCPA as a matter of law even though there was evidence that the debtor received up to seven calls in a single day
• noting in caller's favor that caller \did not call back the same day after leaving a message\
• finding average of three calls per day “somewhat high” but insufficient to find violation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).