Cases

WATTS, J., concurring. Respectfully, I concur in the judgment in both cases, Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, and Townsend v. Midland Funding, but I write separately to explain my reasons. Like the Majority, I conclude that Rule 3-306 sets forth the requirements for obtaining a judgment on affidavit, not the requi

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Beales, Huff, O’Brien, AtLee, Malveaux, Athey, Fulton, PUBLISHED Ortiz, Causey, Friedman, Chaney, Raphael, Lorish, Callins, White and Frucci Argued at Richmond, Virginia MAZIE GREEN OPINION BY v. Record No. 0144-22-3

STRANCH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KEITH, J., joined. BATCHELDER, J. (pp. 452-56), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. *445OPINION JANE BRANSTETTER STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case involves the intersection of the usury law, “society’s oldest continuous form of commercial regulation,” Robin A. Morris, <

OPINION WOLFSON, United States District Judge: This matter arises out of a Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Alma and Gregory Rush (collectively, “Plaintiffs’”), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., as well as a state law claim for invasion of privacy. Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“Defendant” or “Portfolio”) filed a motion fo

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 17‐1773, 17‐1860, 17‐1866, 17‐2622, 17‐2756 & 18‐1374 KATHERINE EVANS, Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant‐Appellant. and

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 17‐1773, 17‐1860, 17‐1866, 17‐2622, 17‐2756 & 18‐1374 KATHERINE EVANS, Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant‐Appellant. and

*176 ORDER PAUL G. GARDEPHE, District Judge: Plaintiff Jason Zimmerman alleges that Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“Portfolio”) attempted to collect debts from him and similarly situated consumers in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” or the “Act”). Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs motions for su

Savage, J. In this putative class action brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),1 we must determine whether the plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact necessary to confer standing. The issue is whether one who has not suffered actual harm or was not at risk of harm as a result of a procedural violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g has standing to assert a claim for that violation. We hold tha

Flaum, Circuit Judge. *342This appeal concerns four consolidated cases involving similar alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8). Plaintiffs defaulted on credit cards, and defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates ("PRA"), an Illinois debt collection agency, bought the accounts for collection

Martinotti, District Judge Before this Court are: (1) Plaintiffs Bracha Pollak ("Pollak") and David Beneli's ("Beneli," together with Pollak, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Summary Judgment *818(ECF No. 50) and Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 51); and (2) Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC's ("PRA") Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No 52.

[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C. v. VanLeeuwen, 2016-Ohio-2962.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY PORTFOLIO RECOVERY : ASSOCIATES, LLC : Appellate Case No. 26692 : Plaintiff-Appellee

NNN Durham Office Portfolio 1, LLC v. Highwoods Realty Ltd. P’ship, 2013 NCBC 12 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF DURHAM 12 CVS 3945 NNN DURHAM OFFICE ) PORTFOLIO 1, LLC; et. al., ) ) Plaintiffs, )

Filed 12/17/19 (unmodified opinion attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR DORIAN L. JACKSON, Cross-complainant and Appellant, A152442 v. LEGALMATCH.COM, (San Francisco City & County Cross-defendant and Respond

Greene, J. In this criminal case, Petitioner Allan Jackson ("Mr. Jackson") challenges the admissibility of two items of evidence that he claims lacked authenticity and were, thus, inadmissible. Specifically, we review the requisite evidentiary foundation for the admission into evidence of a bank statement record as well as a compact disk containing video surveillance footage. Because we

Filed 11/26/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR DORIAN L. JACKSON, Cross-complainant and Appellant, A152442 v. LEGALMATCH.COM, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No.

444 B.R. 286 (2011) In re SCHAEFER SALT RECOVERY, INC. No. 04-36630 (NLW). United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey. January 21, 2011. *288 Stephen V. Falanga, Esq., Connell Foley, LLP, Roseland, NJ, for Carol Segal. *289 Nicholas Khoudary, Esq., East Brunswick, NJ, pro se.

Rel: June 20, 2025 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2

Bid Protest; Assertions of Bias; Supplementation of the Administrative Record. OPINION AND ORDER ERIC G. BRUGGINK, Judge Pending in this protest of a Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to cancel a solicitation is plaintiffs motion to supplement the administrative record with four depositions it seeks leave

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ Nos. 22-2003, 22-2004, 22-2005, 22-2006, 22-0007, 22-2008, 22-2009, 22-2010, 22-2011 ________________ In re: LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC Debtor LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC v. THOSE PARTIES LISTED ON APPENDIX A TO COMPLA

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ Nos. 22-2003, 22-2004, 22-2005, 22-2006, 22-0007, 22-2008, 22-2009, 22-2010, 22-2011 ________________ In re: LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC Debtor LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC v. THOSE PARTIES LISTED ON APPENDIX A TO COMPLAI