Rollo v. Chase Home Fin. LLC

3 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. CenturyLink, Inc.

    Civil Action 3:22-cv-00038 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Davis does not allege that DIRECTV and AT&T are debt collectors or creditors liable under the FDCPA. As such, Davis cannot bring an FDCPA claim against DIRECTV and AT&T. See Rollo v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, No. H-12-2914, 2013 WL 1390676, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2013) (“Although detailed factual pleadings are not required, the plaintiffs have not alleged or identified any facts from which a reasonable fact finder could infer that [defendants] collected the plaintiffs' debt when it was due to another entity or gave a false name in collecting their own debts.

  2. Busby v. Vacation Resorts Int'l

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-4570 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2019)   Cited 5 times
    Dismissing FDCPA and TDCA claim where plaintiff only made conclusory allegation that defendant was a debt collector, with no supporting factual allegations

    A 'creditor' means 'any person . . . to whom a debt is owed.'" Rollo v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, No. H-12-2914, 2013 WL 1390676, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2013) (citations omitted) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c-1692f). However, Busby argues that the "false-name exception" applies to the collection attempts by Vacation Resorts and Shilling because these defendants used Duellman's name "in letters to indicate to [Busby] that a third person [was] collecting or attempting to collect such debts when that [was] not the case."

  3. Mahon v. Anesthesia Bus. Consultants, LLC

    Civil Action No.: 15-1227 (RC) (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    The creditor "need not use its full business name or its name of incorporation." Id.; accord Gutierrez v. AT&T Broadband, LLC, 382 F.3d 725, 739 (7th Cir. 2004); Rollo v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, No. 12-2914, 2013 WL 1390676, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2013); Dickenson v. Townside T.V. & Appliance, 770 F. Supp. 1122, 1128 (S.D. W. Va. 1990). Because the purpose of the false name exception is "to keep the debtor from being deceived into believing some third party other than the creditor with whom [he] has been dealing has been enlisted to collect the debt," Leggett v. Louis Capra & Assocs., LLC, No. 13-5847, 2015 WL 1608662, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2015), "[d]efendants may use assumed names for debt collection, so long as defendants are consistent in using the assumed name to avoid consumer confusion," Everst v. Credit Prot. Ass'n, L.P., No. 01-7025, 2003 WL 22048719, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2003).