A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Cavalry Portfolio Service was sued for alleged FDCPA violations

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

According to the victim he had leased a car in 1996 and completed the lease payments as scheduled in 1999.  Neither the bank nor the dealership ever told him that he owed any additional money for the lease.

His lawsuit alleges that when he received a letter from Cavalry Portfolio Services, he promptly requested a copies of statements showing that there was an outstanding balance for the lease.  However, instead of validating the debt, Cavalry Portfolio Services violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by  suing the consumer.    After he was served he sent a 2nd request for validation of the debt pursuant to the FDCPA.  Cavalry Portfolio Services, then attempted to validate the debt by mailing the consumer a copy of the lease without any documents supporting an outstanding balance owed.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires debt collectors to validate a debt if the consumer disputes that they owe any money.

The consumer wisely exercised his rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending the collection agency a validation letter in writing.

Assuming the facts alleged in the consumer’s FDCPA lawsuit are true, Cavalry Portfolio Services violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to validate the alleged debt before it filed the lawsuit against the consumer.

If you have been harassed by a debt collector in violation of the FDCPA, you may be entitled to compensation.  Please give Consumer Protection Attorney, Todd M. Friedman a call at 877-449-8898 for a free consultation.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.