Lipson Neilson – Law Firm in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

3910 Telegraph Road
Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

(248) 593-5000

(248) 593-5040

More Details

Lipson Neilson – Law Firm in Las Vegas, Nevada

9900 Covington Cross Drive
Suite 120
Las Vegas, NV 89144

(702) 382-1500

(702) 382-1512

More Details

Lipson Neilson – Law Firm in Phoenix, Arizona

5343 N. 16th Street
Suite 140
Phoenix, AZ 85016

(602) 626-8888

(602) 626-5588

More Details


Or Search By:

Summary Dismissal Victory Achieved by Karen A. Smyth and C. Thomas Ludden in Defense of FDCPA Putative Class Action

Defendant’s Rooker-Feldman motion of a putative FDCPA class action was recently granted in favor of the Defendant-Debt Collection Law firm represented by Lipson Neilson. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine limits the jurisdiction of federal courts by restricting their power to adjudicate appeals from or collateral attacks on state-court judgments and final orders.

The Plaintiff sought to challenge state court orders by filing a FDCPA putative class action in federal court. Plaintiff alleged the amount of post-judgment interest owed and communicated to them by Defendants “exceeded the amount permitted by law.”

The Court agreed with the Defendant law firm that the pleading although artfully worded was appealing the writ of garnishment, the source of his alleged injury. The injuries arose from the execution of the writs, not the purported “false” statement in the writs, as Plaintiff never challenged the writs. The Court also found that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine made intuitive sense. Again, the Court agreed with the Defendant law firm that the Michigan Court Rules afforded the debtor/ Plaintiff the opportunity to challenge the writ as “otherwise invalid.” Mich. R. Ct. 3.101(K)(2)(f). Had the Plaintiff objected to the alleged improper interest being requested in the writ, the state district court is required to schedule a hearing. Mich. R. Ct. 3.101(K)(3). Thus, where parties, such as Plaintiff, are afforded an opportunity to challenge the amount of money that will be garnished, they should do so. “Parties should not sit on their hands, have the money garnished, and then sue in a different forum to recover the difference between the amount of interest collected and the amount owed, and also recover statutory damages, costs and fees for their attorneys.” Finding that it would either have to conclude the writs were invalid or otherwise erroneously issue, the Court applied Rooker-Feldman and dismissed the FDCPA lawsuit.

We Look Forward To Connecting With You

  • Lipson Neilson P.C. publishes this website to convey general information and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. This Web site and its contents do not create an attorney-client or any other relationship between Lipson Neilson P.C. and any visitor to the Web site. Electronic mail (“e-mail”) sent to Lipson Neilson P.C. or any of its lawyers will not create an attorney-client relationship.
    * Checkbox Required
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

The verdicts and settlements listed on this site are intended to be representative of cases handled by Lipson Neilson. These listings are not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of any other claims.