Legal Opinion

Mertes v. Devitt

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

Decided April 11, 1990No. 89-C-999-SPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHABAZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Patrick T. Mertes brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., against the defendant Russell Devitt. This Court previously denied defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff had not had sufficient opportunity to obtain discovery of the nature of defendant’s debt collection practices. In its previous decision the Court found that the sole factual issue was whether defendant “regularly collects or attempts to collect” debts such that he is within the coverage of the FDCPA. Additional…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Mary Crossley v. Arnold R. LiebermanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
  3. Crossley v. LiebermanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Littles v. Lieberman (In Re Littles)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1988

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Michael G. Schroyer Gail R. Schroyer v. Kenneth P. Frankel Gerald M. Smith Company, L.P.A., D/B/A Smith & SmithCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  2. Shapiro & Meinhold v. ZartmanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  3. Argentieri v. Fisher Landscapes, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
  4. Stojanovski v. Strobl and Manoogian, PCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1992
  5. Nance v. Petty, Livingston, Dawson, & DeveningDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1994

11 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