Legal Opinion
Rosenau v. Unifund Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided August 20, 2008No. 07-3019PublishedCited by 315 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
Richard Rosenau claims that a debt-collection letter he received from Unifund Corporation and/or Unifund CCR Partners (“Unifund”) was deceptive under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The District Court granted Unifund’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Rosenau appeals, arguing that the letter was deceptive because (1) it implied that it came from an attorney and (2) it stated that it came from the “Legal Department.” For the reasons that follow, we will reverse the District Court’s order and remand.
I
Unifund…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Heintz v. JenkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Christ Clomon v. Philip D. JacksonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Allan J. Jablonski v. Pan American World Airways, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- George Wilson, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Quadramed Corporation, George WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- E. Steven Dutton v. Wolpoff and AbramsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by315 opinions
- Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Gonzalez v. KayCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
- Michelle Tatis v. Allied Interstate LLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR PartnersCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2010
- Paula Jensen v. Pressler & PresslerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
310 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.