It is currently Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:54 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Punitive Damages? No
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:48 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
The FDCPA does not provide for punitive damages.

In re Nangle, US BAP 8th Cir. 2001
www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/006068P.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
257 BR 276, 289


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:26 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
"The Plaintiff cites Thomas v. Pierce, Hamilton, and Stern, Inc., 967 F.Supp. 507, 509 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ga. 1997), for the proposition that punitive damages are recoverable under the FDCPA. The Thomas court held "The only reasonable reading of 'additional,' considering the ordinary meaning of the term, is that 'additional damages' includes punitive damages and that the discretionary statutory award is meant to preclude a separate award of punitive damages." Id. The Thomas court goes on to say "inferring that Congress intended to allow punitive damages under the FDCPA would create an absurd and anomalous result." Id. at 512. The holding of Thomas cuts against the Plaintiff's argument that punitive damages are available under the FDCPA. Several other cases have also held that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA. See Gervais v. O'Connell, Harris & Associates, Inc., 297 F.Supp.2d 435, 440 (U.S.D.C. Conn. 2003); Boyce v. Attorney's Dispatch Service, C-39-94-397, WestLaw 33495605, at 2 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Ohio 1999); Aronson v. Creditrust Corp., 7 F.Supp.2d 589, 594 (W.D.Pa.1998). In Aronson, the court held "punitive damages are not recoverable under the FDCPA and therefore, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in relationship to his FDCPA claims is granted and said request ordered stricken from the Complaint." Id. This Court agrees that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA. The "additional damages" award of the FDCPA is meant to preclude a separate award of punitive damages. The legislature has already provided a statutory damage remedy that is punitive in nature. Allowing an additional separate award of punitive damages would be contrary to legislative intent and would render the limited statutory remedy of "additional damages" unnecessary. Because this Court concludes that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA, the Defendant's motion to strike paragraph 21 and the Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages under the FDCPA is granted. Therefore, paragraph 21 is stricken from the Complaint in its entirety; the item in Plaintiff's prayer "D. for punitive and exemplary damages," is stricken from the Complaint under the FDCPA cause of action." Wood v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WestLaw 3159639 [U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. 2005].


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
Spicer v. Lenehan,
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 3112554, D.Conn., Sep 14, 2004

No punitives.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:49 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:54 am
Posts: 118
PUNITIVE DAMAGES?

The FDCPA does not provide for punitive damages. In re Nangle, 281 BR. 654, 658 [US BAP 8th Cir. 2001] - www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/006068P.pdf; Bynum v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, L.L.C., Slip Copy, 2006 WestLaw 897712 [U.S.D.C. N.D. Okla. 2006].

"The Plaintiff cites Thomas v. Pierce, Hamilton, and Stern, Inc., 967 F.Supp. 507, 509 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ga. 1997), for the proposition that punitive damages are recoverable under the FDCPA. The Thomas court held "The only reasonable reading of 'additional,' considering the ordinary meaning of the term, is that 'additional damages' includes punitive damages and that the discretionary statutory award is meant to preclude a separate award of punitive damages." Id. The Thomas court goes on to say "inferring that Congress intended to allow punitive damages under the FDCPA would create an absurd and anomalous result." Id. at 512. The holding of Thomas cuts against the Plaintiff's argument that punitive damages are available under the FDCPA. Several other cases have also held that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA. See Gervais v. O'Connell, Harris & Associates, Inc., 297 F.Supp.2d 435, 440 (U.S.D.C. Conn. 2003); Boyce v. Attorney's Dispatch Service, C-39-94-397, WestLaw 33495605, at 2 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Ohio 1999); Aronson v. Creditrust Corp., 7 F.Supp.2d 589, 594 (W.D.Pa.1998). In Aronson, the court held "punitive damages are not recoverable under the FDCPA and therefore, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in relationship to his FDCPA claims is granted and said request ordered stricken from the Complaint." Id. This Court agrees that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA. The "additional damages" award of the FDCPA is meant to preclude a separate award of punitive damages. The legislature has already provided a statutory damage remedy that is punitive in nature. Allowing an additional separate award of punitive damages would be contrary to legislative intent and would render the limited statutory remedy of "additional damages" unnecessary. Because this Court concludes that punitive damages are not available under the FDCPA, the Defendant's motion to strike paragraph 21 and the Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages under the FDCPA is granted. Therefore, paragraph 21 is stricken from the Complaint in its entirety; the item in Plaintiff's prayer "D. for punitive and exemplary damages," is stricken from the Complaint under the FDCPA cause of action." Wood v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WestLaw 3159639 [U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. 2005].

_________________
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:10 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
In re Nangle
257 B.R. 276
8th Cir.BAP (Mo.),2001.
January 04, 2001

The jury verdict in favor of Siemer does not state whether it was based upon Count I (federal claim) or Count II (federal and *284 state claims combined) of the complaint.FN9 Although, the type of damages awarded, for “mental distress, embarrassment···,â€

_________________
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group