Legal Opinion

Bicking v. Law Offices of Rubenstein and Cogan

District Court, E.D. Virginia

Decided May 5, 2011No. Civil Action 3:11CV78-HEHPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss)

HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge.

This is a putative class action for damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. It is presently before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Court will dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion will be denied.

I

At issue in this case are certain debt-collection…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Francis v. GiacomelliCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
  4. Republican Party Of North Carolina v. James G. MartinCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
  5. McKinney v. Cadleway Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Joann Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, a Law Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  2. Osborn v. Ekpsz, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2011
  3. Hernandez v. GuglielmoDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2011
  4. Fariasantos v. Rosenberg & Associates, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2014
  5. Grant-Fletcher v. McMullen & Drury, P.A.District Court, D. Maryland · 2013

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API