CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

U.S. Supreme Court Finds General Discovery Rule Inapplicable to the SOL for FDCPA Violations

Posted on: January 16th, 2020

By: Nicole L. Graham

In Klemm v. Rotkiske, No. 18-328, 589 U.S. ____ (2019), the United State Supreme Court unanimously agreed there is no blanket discovery rule that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, applies to all cases arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  The majority held that the plain text of 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) unambiguously states the date of the violation starts the clock on the one-year limitations period.  The Court declined Rotkiske’s request to read into the statute a provision that limitations period begins to run on the date on which the violation occurs or the date of discovery of such violation.  Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, found it clear from the face of the text that “[t]he FDCPA limitations period begins to run from the date the alleged FDCPA violation actually happened.”  Accordingly, the limitations period for an FDCPA claim arising from the filing of a collection action complaint begins to run from the date the action is filed and not from the date the debtor is served the complaint.  Similarly, the limitations period for an FDCPA claim based on a debt collection notice begins to run from the date of the notice and not from the date the notice is received.

The Court did, however, leave the door open to the possible application of an equitable “fraud-specific discovery rule.”  The Court declined to decide whether the text of 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) permits the application of equitable doctrines because Rotkiske failed to preserve the issue before the Third Circuit and failed to raise the issue in his petition for certiorari.

Justice Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion to note that the Court’s decision does not prevent parties from invoking an equitable “fraud-specific discovery rule.”  Justice Ginsburg, the lone dissenter, felt Rotkiske preserved the equitable “fraud-specific discovery rule” argument in his petition for certiorari, and found the allegations of the complaint should suffice under the equitable “fraud-specific discovery rule” to permit adjudication of Rotkiske’s claim on the merits.

Because the question of the applicability of equitable exceptions to the FDCPA’s statute of limitations remains unresolved, it would not be surprising to see the issue before the Supreme Court again soon.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Nicole Graham at [email protected].

Tips on Dealing With Pro Per Parties In California

Posted on: January 15th, 2020

By: Greg Fayard

At some point in their career, lawyers deal with the unrepresented—or pro pers. In California, there’s now an ethical rule that governs how to fairly and properly engage with opposing parties who do not have lawyers.

Rule 4.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for California lawyers says a lawyer cannot tell an unrepresented party he or she is disinterested or neutral. If the lawyer reasonably believes the pro per thinks the opposing lawyer is neutral, the lawyer needs to make a reasonable effort to correct that misunderstanding.

If a lawyer knows or suspects the interests of the unrepresented person conflicts with the lawyer’s client, the lawyer cannot give legal advice to him or her, but may advise the person to get counsel. Further, lawyers shall not try to get privileged or confidential information from pro pers. Under Rule 4.3, a lawyer can negotiate with unrepresented parties, but the lawyer must disclose that he or she represents an opposing party.

The policy behind this rule is fairness to pro pers, and to not take advantage of them because they do not have counsel.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected], or any other member of our Lawyers Professional Liability Practice Group, a list of which can be found at www.fmglaw.com.

Ransomware Attacks Reached Unprecedented Numbers in 2019

Posted on: January 15th, 2020

By: Melissa Santalone

According to a study published by Emsisoft Malware Lab, an unparalleled number of ransomware attacks hit U.S. businesses and government agencies in 2019.  In total, 113 state and municipal governments and agencies, 764 healthcare providers, and 89 universities, colleges, and school districts were targeted at a potential cost of more than $7.5 billion.  In many instances, these attacks caused disruptions that placed lives at risk, like when 911 services were interrupted, emergency patients had to be sent to other hospitals, and police were unable to run background checks and check criminal histories and active warrants.

The report analyzed the “why” of the sharp increase of ransomware attacks in 2019 and concluded that organizations continue to have security weaknesses and attackers have developed better ways of exploiting those weaknesses, creating a “perfect storm.”  Emsisoft referenced a 2019 University of Maryland, Baltimore County report based on data from a national survey of cybersecurity in local governments that found a lack of preparedness within the local governments and a lack of funding for cybersecurity.  Many local governments do not even have mechanisms in place to detect or track cyberattacks and even basic best practices are going unused.  The report cited the city of Baltimore’s loss of data after a ransomware attack because data resided only on users’ individual systems for which there was no mechanism for back-up.

It is clear that state and local governments, healthcare providers, and schools need to be better at preventing, detecting and recovering from ransomware and other cyberattacks.  The Emsisoft report recommends multiple actions that should be taken to make public entities more secure, including improved oversight, more guidance, better funding, and mandatory reporting requirements for ransomware and other cybersecurity incidents.  While there are numerous federal and state laws requiring entities to take protective measures to secure the data with which they are trusted, many organizations are failing to comply.  Emsisoft suggests that authorities should implement auditing systems and corrective measures for those entities that fail to meet minimum standards.  Further, the report argues, clear minimum standards must be adopted so organizations can make appropriate decisions about how best to protect themselves and can allocate their resources in better ways.  Because ransomware and other cyberattacks are not always required to be reported, it is also proposed that entities be legally required to do so in an effort to better pool information on such attacks to detect, prevent, and recover from them.

The Data Security, Privacy & Technology attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP are ready, willing, and able to assist entities with compliance with data security and privacy laws and preparing for attacks before they occur.  If you have any questions about detecting, preventing, or responding to ransomware or other cyberattacks, contact Melissa Santalone at [email protected] or any other member of our Data Security, Privacy & Technology team.

Section 1983 First Amendment Retaliation by Litigation: SOL without PC

Posted on: January 14th, 2020

By: Brent Bean

“When angry count to ten before you speak.  If very angry, count to one hundred.”  – Thomas Jefferson

In a case of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit, the Court held that in a Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim premised on the filing of a civil lawsuit, probable cause will generally defeat the claim as a matter of law.  See DeMartini v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 17-14177 (11th Cir., Nov. 21, 2019).

A Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim requires the plaintiff to show (1) she engaged in protected speech, (2) the government’s retaliatory conduct adversely affected that speech and (3) a causal link exists between the conduct and the adverse effect.  As the Supreme Court observed, retaliatory animus is “easy to allege and hard to disprove.”  Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. ___, ___, 139 S.Ct. 1715, 1725, (2019).

There are two accepted methods of showing causation.  The first, typically used in the employment setting, is whether the retaliatory motivation was the but-for cause of the adverse action.  If not, or if the government would have taken the same action regardless of retaliatory animus, the defendant is not liable.  The second, typically used when the government uses the legal system to arrest or prosecute a plaintiff, is to ask whether there was probable cause for the arrest or prosecution.  If so, this will destroy the casual link.

In DeMartini, the plaintiff sued the Town of Gulf Stream, Florida (population 2000), for filing a civil RICO action against DeMartini and her business, CAFI.  The Town filed the lawsuit because CAFI had made thousands of public records requests designed to overwhelm the small town’s staff and lead to the recovery of attorney’s fees for non-compliance.

In the face of these requests, the Town received a sworn statement from an insider at CAFI attesting the requests were bogus and designed to lead to monetary recovery. The Town then engaged outside counsel to advise on merits of a lawsuit to stop the abuse.  The Town filed the RICO case, which was dismissed because the Town could show no predicate act.

DeMartini then sued the Town under Section 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, claiming the RICO lawsuit was unlawful retaliation designed to silence her right to seek redress, a First Amendment right.  She claimed public statements made at Town meetings confirmed the retaliatory animus for the lawsuit and the RICO lawsuit had no merit, as it was dismissed and affirmed on appeal.

The Eleventh Circuit considered whether a plaintiff asserting a claim for Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation based on the filing of a civil lawsuit is required to plead and prove an absence of probable cause for the civil lawsuit and whether the Town in fact lacked such probable cause.

The Court held that while the RICO lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, it was not without probable cause because the Town had sworn facts from an insider and had hired a lawyer who advised them on the law. So, the Court concluded the Town had a reasonable belief in the validity of the RICO claim.  The Court then held for retaliatory claims based on a civil lawsuit DeMartini had to show an absence of probable cause in the filing of the RICO lawsuit, which DeMartini could not do.

Governments seeking to take affirmative steps through civil litigation will be one-hundred times better served to first confirm their claims are supported by probable cause prior to filing a civil lawsuit.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Brent Bean at [email protected].

To Pursue or Not to Pursue

Posted on: January 10th, 2020

By: Sara Brochstein

The City of Atlanta Police Department has announced that its officers will no longer engage in vehicular pursuits while it takes time to review its pursuit policies. This decision comes in the face of recent deadly crashes where suspects in stolen vehicles struck and killed motorists while fleeing police pursuits.

Police pursuits have often been the subject of controversy as the risks and benefits are constantly being weighed.  On one hand, pursuits have the potential to put innocent pedestrians and motorists in harm’s way.  In situations where the crime or violation is minor, the risk is even more unjustified.  Conversely, to disengage in pursuits altogether signals to people that arrest can be avoided by evading the police in vehicles.  This certainly has the potential lead to an increase in crime as Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields acknowledged when announcing the City’s change in position.

Notably, the City’s new policy is intended to only serve as an interim policy while the department “work[s] to identify specific personnel and certain specialized pursuit training to enable the department to conduct pursuits in limited instances.”  However, as long as the no-pursuit policy remains in effect, the City of Atlanta may prove to be an instructive case study as to whether pursuits are worth the risk.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Sara Brochstein at [email protected].