Attorney’s Abandonment of Cases Calls into Question His Adequacy as Class Counsel

A new decision from the Eastern District of New York denying class certification shows a glimpse into a plaintiffs' counsel's practice that caused a court to call into question his adequacy as class counsel. The decision also sets a limit on who can serve as a class representative for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) suit. The biggest issue presented for plaintiff's case was that his wife, who was not named in the suit, was running the show, and he was minimally involved in the process. This case also shows the power of depositions.

The Facts

In Russell v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, No. 17-cv-4274 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020), the plaintiff's counsel filed a class action against defendant alleging that a collection lawsuit and communications violated a slew of FDCPA provisions. A deposition of plaintiff revealed some interesting facts.

View this content by subscribing

Please register to unlock this content

I already have an account. Log in