LANTERI v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P. et al
| KATHERINE LANTERI |
| CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, LP and ETAN GENERAL, INC. |
| 1:2013cv01501 |
| September 18, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| William T. Lawrence |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
264
ORDER - The Court now makes the following rulings: 1.Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, 234 , is REOPENED, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a.The Motion is GRANTED as to the Class's TCPA claim; b.The Motion is DENIED to the extent that Defendants sought a judgment that Etan cannot be held liable for CPA's actions; c.The Motion is DENIED to the extent that Defendants sought a judgment that they are entitled to assert the bona fide error defense; d.The Motion is DENIED as to Ms. Lanteri's FDCPA claims under 15 U.S.C.§§ 1692c(a)(2), 1692c(c), 1692e, and 1692e(2). 2.Ms. Lanteri's and the Class's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 231 is REOPENED, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART a s follows: a.The Class's Motion is DENIED as to the Class's TCPA claim; b.Ms. Lanteri's Motion is GRANTED to the extent that she sought a judgment that Etan can be held liable for CPA's actions; c.Ms. Lanteri's Motion is GRAN TED to the extent that she sought a judgment that Defendants are not entitled to the bona fide error defense; d.Ms. Lanteri's Motion is GRANTED on the issue of liability only as to her FDCPA claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(a)(2), 1692c (c), 1692e, and 1692e(2). The two issues that remain unresolved are: (1) the amount of damages that should be awarded on Ms. Lanteri's successful FDCPA claims; and (2) liability and damages on Ms. Lanteri's individual TCPA claim, limited t o her claim alleging unlawful prerecorded voice messages, which was not addressed in either summary judgment motion. These issues shall proceed to trial, which shall be scheduled by separate order. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties concerning an agreed upon resolution of this case short of trial. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/15/2020. (JDH)
|
|
Filing
193
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS - This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Third Amended Motion for Class Certification Dkt. No. 169 . The motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, DEN IES IN PART and PROVISIONALLY GRANTS IN PART the motion to the extent. Court DENIES the Plaintiff's motion to certify theBankruptcy Class. Provided that the Plaintiff and her counsel revise the representation agreement to remove the requirement that the Plaintiff pay fees, expenses, and costs if she were to withdraw her claim or settle individually against her attorneys' advice and submit an executed copy of the revised representation agreement to the Court within ten days of the d ate of this Entry, the Court will enter an order certifying the following Stop Class: (1) All persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Credit Protection Association, L.P., sent a text message (4) using its vendor RingClear (5) within four years of September 8, 2013, (6) after the cellular phone owner replied with the one-word reply "stop" in any combination of uppercase and lowercase letters other than "STOP" in all uppercase letters. Wi thin fourteen days of the date of the Court's certification order, the parties shall file a proposed case management plan that sets forth a comprehensive schedule for bringing this case to a conclusion. ***SEE ENTRY*** Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/26/2018. (JDC)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER denying Defendant's 138 Motion to Certify Class; granting 154 Motion for Leave to File; granting 158 Motion for Leave to File. Should the Plaintiff seek to certify the classes proposed by the Court, she must file a new motion for class certification within 21 days of the date of this Entry. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/22/2017. (JDC)
|
|
Filing
137
ENTRY ON MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATIONAND VARIOUS RELATED MOTIONS: In conclusion, the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. No. 102) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the Defendants' Motion to Stay Ruling on Motion for Class Certification until Plaintiff's Experts Can Be Deposed (Dkt. No. 120) is DENIED AS MOOT; and the Defendants' Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 125) is DENIED, but the denial is without prejudice with regard to discovery related to Biggerstaff. The Plaintiff's new motion for class certification shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this Entry ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/17/2016. (DW)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
