As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, the district court in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir., July 10, 2014), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Sept. 18, 2014), pet. for cert. filed, LVNV Funding, LLC, v. Crawford, Case No. 14-858 (U.S. Sup. Ct., Jan. 15, 2015), held that the Bankruptcy Code does not preempt a debtor’s claims for a creditor’s alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by conduct that occurs while the debtor’s bankruptcy case is ongoing, even where, as here, the debtor has also filed an adversary proceeding against the creditor in the bankruptcy court to recover for the creditor’s violation of the automatic stay. See Simon v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 732 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2013) (“[w]hen, as here, FDCPA claims arise from communications a debt collector sends a bankruptcy debtor in a pending bankruptcy proceeding, and the communications are alleged to violate the Bankruptcy Code or Rules, there is no categorical preclusion of the FDCPA claims”); Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2004) (the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not irreconcilably conflict with the Bankruptcy Code, and a debtor in bankruptcy could maintain a claim against a collection agency that attempted to collect a debt after the debtor filed bankruptcy); Bacelli v. MFP, Inc., 729 F.Supp.2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (no irreconcilable conflict existed between the remedies available under the Bankruptcy Code for violation of the automatic stay and claims under the FDCPA based on collection letters violating the automatic stay).
Davis v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., 2014 WL 4954705 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 2, 2014)
(case no. 8:14-cv-198) (District Judge Susan C. Bucklew)