It is currently Thu May 28, 2020 6:42 pm

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:24 am 
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:17 am
Posts: 171
Maloney v. LVNV Funding LLC
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 3006484
October 20, 2006


JERRY BUCHMEYER, Senior District Judge.
*1 Before the Court is Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (filed August 23, 2006) (Dkt. No. 21). After careful consideration of all parties' submissions, and the law applicable to the issues before the Court, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.


Plaintiff Heather Maloney (Maloney) sued LVNV Funding, LLC (LVNV), Resurgent Capital Services, LP (Resurgent), and Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership (Sherman) (collectively, Defendants) alleging violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (FDCPA), and the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, Tex. Fin.Code § 392.01 (TDCPA), in addition to alleging a common law claim of defamation. LVNV and Sherman are debt purchasers and Resurgent serviced the account as a third-party debt collector.
Maloney defaulted on a credit card account financed by Providian National Bank. The account was charged off on March 1, 2000. Sherman purchased the debt on or about October 30, 2002. Subsequently, on or about September 28, 2005, Sherman assigned the debt to LVNV. Both LVNV and Sherman retained Resurgent to collect the debt. Resurgent sent its first collection notice to Maloney on or about February 18, 2005.
From September 2005 to January 2006, Maloney sent numerous letters to credit reporting agencies and Defendants alleging various inaccuracies in regard to the reporting of the defaulted account. Specifically, Maloney claimed that because the account was charged off, it should not be reported as “openâ€

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:33 pm 

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 1
Per , the named Defendants are essentially one and the same. Resurgent is a corporate alter ego of LVNV. I find it interesting that the Defendants actually appear to argue (or clearly imply) that they are independent, third-parties to each other and, thus, for various reasons are not liable for the acts of the other. I am sure this is intentional on their attorneys' parts.

If ever some "corporate veils" needed to be pierced, it is these.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group