Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP is proud to regularly achieve outstanding results for its clients.

Recent litigations we have been involved in include:

Class Actions

  • In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Plastic Coolant Tubes Products Liability Litigation, 11-MD-2233 (N.D. Ohio) (multidistrict products liability class action) (member, executive committee). See 880 F. Supp. 2d 801 (S.D. Ohio 2012); 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88693 (S.D. Ohio June 30, 2014), aff’d summary order (6th Cir. 14-3421, 7/13/15), certiorari denied (SCOTUS, 12/14/15).
  • In re Midland Funding, LLC Interest Rate Litigation, 11-CV-814 (S.D.N.Y.) (class action). See 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015) (reversing district court’s denial of class certification and holding that National Bank Act Preemption of state usury laws did not extend to non-bank taking assignment of loans from a national bank); 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27109 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 27, 2017) (denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to FDCPA and GBL 349 claims and certifying class).
  • Moy v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., 12-CV-02382 (E.D.N.Y.) (Approved FDCPA class action regarding allegedly false and misleading collection letters sent to judgment debtors).
  • Coble, et al. v. Cohen & Slamowitz, et al., 11-CV-01037 (S.D.N.Y.) (approved FDCPA class action regarding alleged filing of fraudulent affidavits in tens of thousands of state court collection cases). See 824 F. Supp. 2d 568 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss); class-wide settlement approved, October 9, 2014.
  • De La Paz v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, et al., 11-CV-9625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Approved FDCPA class action against high volume debt collection law firm alleging misstatements regarding debt collectors’ standing to sue and failure to meaningfully review state court collection pleadings); class-wide settlement approved, June 16, 2014.

Individual Cases

  • DiMatteo v. Sweeney, Gallo, Reich & Bolz, 13-CV-8451 (S.D.N.Y.) See 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12250 (2d Cir. July 16, 2015) (reversing dismissal of complaint with regard to unlawful addition of attorney’s fees in complaint filed against rent-controlled tenant in housing court).
  • United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Pia, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4962 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 7, 2011) (granting consumer rescission of home loan pursuant to the Truth In Lending Act); affirmed 106 A.D.3d 991 (2d Dept. 2013); leave to appeal denied, 2013 LEXIS 2512 (Ct. of Appeals, 9/17/13); 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3841 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 26, 2014) (holding bank in contempt for non-compliance with prior court orders and denying bank’s motion to quash post-judgment discovery).
  • Douyon v. NY Med. Health Care, P.C., 10-CV-3983 (E.D.N.Y). See 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47850 (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2011) (striking defendants’ answer and sanctioning defendants in case involving allegations of medical debt collection abuse); 894 F. Supp. 2d 245 (granting in part and denying in part parties’ cross motions for summary judgment), plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration granted at 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138053 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013); 49 F. Supp. 3d 328 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (awarding attorney’s fees).
  • Diaz v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC, 10-CV-3920 (E.D.N.Y.) 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25802 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2012), adopted by, objections overruled by, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72724 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2012) (denying dismissal of FDCPA and Judiciary Law claims based on debt collection attorneys’ alleged failure to file state court complaint timely under New York’s borrowing statute, and alleged failure to meaningfully review complaint prior to filing).
  • Shepherd v. Law Offices of Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 08-CV-6199 (S.D.N.Y.). See 668 F.Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (denying motion to dismiss, sanctioning defendant); 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135501 (S.D.N.Y. December 21, 2010) (awarding fees).