So-Called Litigation Privilege Under FDCPA

[David A. Szwak]

Case law addressing the FDCPA has expressly held that the litigation privilege does not apply to conduct proscribed by the FDCPA. In support, I've cited two cases: Irwin v. Mascott (N.D. Cal 2000) 11 F.Supp.2d 937, and Heintz v. Jenkins (1995) 514 U.S. 291.] Defendants like to cite Taylor v. Quall (C.D. Cal 2006) 458 F. Supp. 2d 1065, which holds that the California litigation privilege bars state law claims, including those under Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for allegedly wrongful debt collection practices engaged in by defendants in the context of litigation. Authorities for no FDCPA litigation privilege: Nutter v. Messerli & Kramer, 07-00293 (D. Minn. 2007), Blevins v. Hudson & Keyse, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 2d 655, 662 (S.D. Ohio 2004); see also Campos v. Brooksbank, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. N.M. 2000) (“Lawyers engaged in litigation are subject to the FDCPAâ€