When debt collectors called you, they never expected you to call us!

Pressler & Pressler Hit with Class Action

In a recent article published by NJ Law Journal, it was reported that a putative class action has been filed against the largest collections firm in New Jersey, Pressler & Pressler.

This news comes in the wake of a recent ruling that determined “four-seconds” is not enough time to be considered “meaningful attorney review” under the FDCPA.

The class action stems from complaints originally declared in the case of Bock v. Pressler & Pressler. Here it was found that a single attorney would review and sign hundreds of complaints in a day, neglecting to involve other lawyers in the pre-filing process.

In the opinion for Bock v. Pressler & Pressler, U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty writes:

“The case law is sparse, and it is possible for reasonable people to disagree as to what constitutes reasonable attorney review. But whatever reasonable attorney review may be, a four-second scan is not it.”

Pressler & Pressler was discovered to be in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as the complaints filed by the firm implied almost no attorney involvement.

According to NJ Law Journal, Pressler & Pressler presented the argument that “the rules require only a belief that the allegations are likely to have evidentiary support,” explaining that an “attorney’s good-faith belief cannot simply be willed into existence, but must be formed after an inquiry.”

The case of Bock v. Pressler & Pressler originated with a debt that was purchased by Midland Funding LLC, who employed Pressler & Pressler to collect the debt. After presenting Daniel Bock, Jr. with a collection letter, Pressler & Pressler proceeded to file a complaint against him with the Superior Court of New Jersey.

As you can see, the FDCPA works to defend consumers from negligent and illegal debt collection practices. Because Pressler & Pressler did not have an attorney meaningfully review the case before sending a collection letter, it was ruled that the firm’s actions were both false and misleading. When struggling with debt collectors, it’s important that you fully understand your rights under the FDCPA and other federal statutes.

If you’re dealing with a debt collector who you feel may be in violation of the FDCPA, it is suggested that you meet with one of our consumer law attorneys right away. We can help determine whether your rights have been violated, as you may be entitled to compensation under the federal law. Email us for your free case review.

Comments 2 Comments

  1. I am currently in court to reopen a judgement I just found out about from 2010. I showed to the judge that I did not sign the summons. He agreed with me.

    He asked I prove my out of state address which I did with car insurance cards and w2 forms from 2009 to 2012. I only bought those.

    Now the judge is requiring I prove I did not receive the court letters in 2013 through 2015 when I was away.

    Comment by Derrick Baker on November 3rd, 2016 at 8:41 pm

  2. Pressler & Pressler presented the argument that “the rules require only a belief that the allegations are likely to have evidentiary support,…” This is not accurate. N.J. case law requires that a plaintiff must prove that he is entitled to the relief being sought. Marder v. Realty Construction Co., 84 N.J. Super. 313; 202 A.2d 175; 1964 N.J. Super. LEXIS 355; Foster v. New Albany Machine & Tool Co., 63 N.J. Super. 262; 164 A.2d 492; 1960 N.J. Super. LEXIS 416. Under federal credit card law, burden of proof for credit card liability is laid squarely on the issuer, 15 USC Sec. 1643(b). Failure of the complainant to provide such proof bestows immunity from liability for fraudulent credit card debt upon the dunned consumer. 15 USC Sec. 1643(d).
    N.J. Superior Court Rules allow a “short cut ” method to obtain default judgments by filing a copy of the final credit card bill. Rule 6:6-3. This is most likely the Rule misinterpreted in the first paragraph. Pursuant to 15 USC Sec. 1666, a credit card bill is not absolute proof of a liquidated amount of obligation. Therefore, a trial to determine the actual amount due to the creditor is required by the Marder and Foster precedents cited above.

    Comment by Mario Peralta on April 28th, 2017 at 12:15 am

Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Visit our YouTube Channel

Site Map | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | External Linking Policy
Copyright © 2009-2017. All rights reserved.