Defending You Against
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC

In Jancik v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC (D. Minn. 2007), the court certified a class of consumers claiming Cavalry Portfolio sent false, misleading and unfair settlement letters, violating the FDCPA.

The plaintiff in this case rejected Cavalry Portfolio's settlement offer before the plaintiff consumer obtained a ruling on class certification. Cavalry Portfolio argued that this offer eliminated the live controversy between the parties. However, the court stated that Cavalry Portfolio could not "buy its way out of class litigation merely by making a [settlement] offer prior to a plaintiff's filing a motion for class certification." The court determined that all necessary prerequisites were met to certify the class action, and further stated that de minimus recovery would not be a bar to class certification.

More information to help with a wage garnishment:

• Receive a Notice of Garnishment? Here’s a Summary of New York Law
• How much of my wages can be garnished? Summary of New York Law
• Vacating a Default Judgment in New York: 8 Fine Points

Here is a list of New York City’s Marshals who enforce wage garnishments:

• City Marshal Ronald Moses
• City Marshal Bruce Kemp
• City Marshal Gregg E. Bienstock
• City Marshal Martin Bienstock
• City Marshal Henry Daly

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC's Permissive Counterclaims against Consumer were Appropriate in Federal Court

After a consumer brought an action against Cavalry Portfolio alleging violation of the FDCPA, and Cavalry Portfolio filed counterclaims alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the court in Kimmel v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC (E.D. Penn. 2010) held that Cavalry Portfolio's counterclaims were permissive and the Court had federal diversity jurisdiction over the claims.

The consumer's cause of action in this case arises under a federal statute, the FDCPA, while Cavalry Portfolio's claims arise under state law. The court found that the consumer's claim and Cavalry Portfolio's claims did not arise out of the same transaction because the FDCPA claim questions the means used to collect a debt, while Cavalry Portfolio's counterclaims raise issues regarding the existence of the debt. An independent basis of federal jurisdiction is needed to hear such permissive counterclaims. Here, the court found it had an independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction over Cavalry Portfolio's counterclaim due to diversity of citizenship (Cavalry Portfolio's principal place of business is in New York and it is a Delaware limited liability company, while the consumer lives in Pennsylvania).

The court stated that the consumer's claim and Cavalry Portfolio's counterclaims should not be heard as separate matters because it would be more convenient for the two parties to litigate all claims in a single action and because the subject matter was so similar. Hearing the claims together would eliminate wasting judicial resources.

Cavalry Portfolio's motion to sanction the consumer's counsel was denied because there was no evidence suggesting that the consumer's motion to dismiss the counterclaim was filed for an improper purpose or that it purposefully multiplied the proceedings.

News: WV Attorney General Sues Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC

West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw filed suit against Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC in 2010. McGraw claimed that Cavalry Portfolio purchased charged-off credit card accounts and filed suits in West Virginia despite not having a license to collect the debts, thus violating state tax department regulations.

Cavalry Portfolio, however, said McGraw's statements were inaccurate, and that it maintained a license to lawfully collect debt in West Virginia. Cavalry Portfolio stated that it was prepared to defend itself against the Attorney General's allegations.

Cavalry has purchased more than $20 billion in consumer debt since 2002.

We can help you in your lawsuit brought by Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC. Contact us at (888) 271-7109.