Spina vs. QAR (Middle District, Florida – May 26, 2017) – Case No. 16-cv-62751.
Plaintiff, through consumer law firm Smith & Marco, filed a FDCPA lawsuit against our client. At trial, we argued our client was entitled to directed verdict on Plaintiff § 1692e(8) claim as there was no evidence our client actively credit reported Plaintiff’s account after Plaintiff disputed the account. Magistrate Judge Thomas McCoun agreed stating: “persuasive authority uniformly holds that when a debt collector such as QAR learns of a dispute after reporting the debt to a credit bureau, the dispute need not also be reported.”