Aldridge Pite Haan Lawsuit: FDCPA Cases and California Penalty

Aldridge Pite Haan, LLP, an Atlanta-based multi-state debt collection and foreclosure law firm, has been the subject of a proposed federal class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a 2025 California regulatory order with a $5,000 penalty, additional consumer litigation, and a substantial volume of Better Business Bureau complaints. The Aldridge Pite Haan lawsuit picture centers on how the firm’s collection letters were sent and how it complied with state licensing rules.

The Defalico FDCPA Class Action

The most prominent case against the firm is Defalico v. Aldridge Pite Haan, LLP (Case No. 2:17-cv-00568-JPS), filed April 20, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Plaintiff Lee Defalico alleged the firm violated multiple provisions of the FDCPA through a collection letter regarding a medical debt.¹

The complaint’s core allegation was that the firm ran a high-volume, computer-automated letter operation, sending collection notices on attorney letterhead without meaningful attorney review. The letters, the complaint said, falsely implied a lawyer had personally evaluated the consumer’s account and formed a professional judgment about the debt before mailing. No attorney actually reviewed individual files or looked at underlying documentation such as contracts or payment history, according to the pleading.²

The letter did carry a disclaimer that no attorney had personally reviewed the account. Defalico argued the disclaimer was buried and confusing and did not meet the “clear and prominent” standard needed to cure the misleading impression the letterhead created. The complaint added that none of the firm’s attorneys were licensed to practice law in Wisconsin.²

Defalico sought to represent all Wisconsin residents who received the firm’s standard initial collection letter between April 20, 2016, and April 20, 2017, for a personal, family, or household debt where the letter was not returned as undeliverable. He asked for actual and statutory damages plus attorney’s fees.² The available record does not show a final ruling or settlement.

Daniels v. Aldridge Pite Haan

A second FDCPA case, Daniels v. Aldridge Pite Haan LLP (Case No. 5:20-cv-00089), was filed March 3, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia before Judge Tilman Eugene Self III. The docket shows the case was terminated on July 9, 2020.³ The grounds for termination are not detailed in the available materials.

The Wilkinson Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Proceeding

Aldridge Pite LLP, a related entity, was named as a defendant in Kenneth G. Wilkinson, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. (Adv. No. 25-02061) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California.⁴

The dispute involved a Placerville, California property secured by a $136,000 loan from 1999. The loan defaulted in 2021, a foreclosure sale occurred on September 26, 2024, and Kenneth Wilkinson filed a Chapter 13 petition the next day. A Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was then recorded on December 5, 2024, despite the automatic stay. Other defendants conceded the recording violated the stay, but the court found the complaint did not allege Aldridge Pite’s involvement in it; the evidence pointed instead to Premium Title of California as the party that requested recording.⁵

In a September 16, 2025 memorandum, Judge Fredrick E. Clement dismissed the first four causes of action with prejudice on issue-preclusion grounds tied to a prior federal dismissal. The stay-violation claim survived against other defendants but was dismissed against Aldridge Pite LLP with leave to amend. The Wilkinsons’ motions to sanction and disqualify Aldridge Pite LLP and co-counsel Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP were denied. The sanctions motion failed for lack of the required 21-day safe harbor notice; the disqualification motion failed because the court found the evidence of the firms’ involvement in the recording was weak.⁴

California Regulatory Action and $5,000 Penalty

On May 14, 2025, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued a Desist and Refrain Order and Order Assessing Penalties against the firm.⁶ The firm missed the March 15, 2025 deadline to file its annual report under the state’s Debt Collection Licensing Act. It filed on March 26, 2025, but the Commissioner treated the late filing as an unlawful act and a failure to conform to consumer financial laws.⁷

The order directs the firm and its managers, officers, directors, agents, and employees to stop engaging in unlawful acts and to cease offering financial products or services that do not comply with consumer financial laws. It stays in effect until the Commissioner says otherwise. The firm was assessed a $5,000 penalty, payable within 30 days.⁷

Consumer Complaints on Record

As of mid-2026, 85 complaints had been filed against the firm with the Better Business Bureau over the preceding three years, 25 of them closed in the most recent 12 months. The firm is not BBB-accredited.⁸

Common themes in the complaints include difficulty reaching staff and unresponsive departments, wage garnishments continuing after debts were reportedly settled, billing disputes over overpayments or inaccurate balances, and documentation delays such as failures to file court dismissals after an account was resolved. A smaller set cite unprofessional conduct by representatives, including staff raising their voices or speaking over callers.⁸

Of the 85 complaints, 73 were marked “answered,” meaning the firm responded but the consumer either didn’t accept the response or didn’t notify the BBB of the outcome. Ten were classified as resolved, one as unresolved, and one as unanswered. In its public replies, the firm typically posts a standardized statement directing the complainant to attached documentation rather than addressing specifics on the BBB platform.⁸

1
ClassAction.org. Aldridge Pite Haan LLP Named in Debt Collection Lawsuit
2
ClassAction.org. Defalico v. Aldridge Pite Haan Complaint
3
CourtListener. Daniels v. Aldridge Pite Haan LLP
4
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Cal. Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation Memorandum
5
GovInfo. Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation Order
6
California DFPI. Aldridge Pite Haan LLP Enforcement Action
7
California DFPI. Desist and Refrain Order Against Aldridge Pite Haan LLP
8
BBB. Aldridge Pite Haan LLP Complaints