No class action against Mandarich Law Group has ever been certified, and the Chicago-based debt collection firm has won every putative FDCPA class action brought against it that has reached a ruling. The Mandarich Law Group class action lawsuits filed between roughly 2019 and 2024 attacked the firm’s collection letters, its handling of time-barred debts, and the paperwork behind its state-court complaints, but federal courts in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, along with district courts in New York and California, have either dismissed the cases outright or ruled for the firm on summary judgment. If you were hoping to join a pending class, there isn’t one. If Mandarich is suing you, the leverage lies in individual defenses, not in group litigation.
Who Mandarich Represents
Mandarich Law Group, LLP is headquartered in Chicago and files consumer collection suits in more than 20 states.1Mandarich Law Group. Mandarich Law Group Its clients are mostly debt buyers — companies that purchase charged-off accounts from original creditors at a discount and then sue for the full balance. The firm’s client list includes Portfolio Recovery Associates, Cavalry SPV I, LVNV Funding, Midland Funding, Midland Credit Management, and CACH, LLC.2The Langel Firm. Mandarich Law Group LLP If the firm obtains a judgment, it can pursue wage garnishments, bank levies, and property liens.
The Class Actions and How They Ended
Each of the putative class actions below alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. None was certified as a class.
Davis v. Mandarich Law Group
Marla Marie Davis alleged that Mandarich submitted a declaration in a California state collection case that claimed compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 98 but was inconsistent with it, which she argued was a false and misleading representation under the FDCPA. An arbitrator ruled for Mandarich and the district court confirmed the award. In January 2020 the Ninth Circuit vacated that judgment, but on a threshold Article III standing question rather than the merits, sending the case back with instructions to dismiss if Davis had not suffered a concrete injury.3FindLaw. Davis v. Mandarich Law Group
Felberbaum v. Mandarich Law Group
Raizy Felberbaum filed suit in the Eastern District of New York in July 2019 over a March 2019 collection letter, arguing that the letter falsely implied an attorney had meaningfully reviewed her account and that it overshadowed the FDCPA’s required debt validation notice. Her proposed class covered consumers who received similar letters within the year before filing.4Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor. Felberbaum v. Mandarich Law Group, Complaint
The district court granted summary judgment to Mandarich in late 2021, finding that firm attorney Matthew Salyer had been “meaningfully and sufficiently involved in the collection process.” Salyer submitted a sworn affidavit describing his review of the affidavit of sale, bill of sale, and account statements on the firm’s internal platform before authorizing the letter.5Orrick InfoBytes. Felberbaum v. Mandarich Law Group, Memorandum and Order On February 13, 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed in a summary order, holding there is no minimum time requirement for attorney review and that sending a letter on law firm letterhead does not by itself threaten legal action in a way that would overshadow a validation notice.6Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor. Felberbaum v. Mandarich Law Group, Summary Order
Rosa v. Mandarich Law Group
William R. Rosa filed a putative class action in the Southern District of New York in 2022 covering New York consumers who received the challenged letters. The court granted Mandarich’s partial motion to dismiss in July 2023, rejecting claims tied to identity theft affidavits and debt collection communications. On February 29, 2024, Judge Lewis J. Liman granted summary judgment for the firm and dismissed the complaint entirely.7vLex. Rosa v. Mandarich Law Grp.
Abdollahzadeh v. Mandarich Law Group
A consumer named Abdollahzadeh alleged that Mandarich tried to collect a debt that was past the statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the firm, holding that Mandarich established the FDCPA’s “bona fide error” defense. The firm’s reliance on client data, an affidavit, an automated date check, and attorney review before suit was “reasonable,” and the statute does not require independent verification of every piece of debt information.8Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor. Seventh Circuit Recognizes That FDCPA’s Bona Fide Error Defense Doesn’t Demand Perfection
Norton v. Mandarich Law Group
Gayle Norton brought claims under both the FDCPA and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the Eastern District of California. On March 22, 2023, the court dismissed the case without leave to amend. Norton had not sent a written cease-and-desist or refusal to pay directly to Mandarich, and the court found the allegedly false statement was not material enough to be actionable. The Rosenthal claim fell with the federal one because it incorporates the FDCPA.9CaseMine. Norton v. Mandarich Grp.
Why the Letter Cases Keep Failing
Several of these suits turned on the “meaningful attorney involvement” doctrine. Under the FDCPA, a collection letter that implies attorney involvement is unlawful if no attorney actually reviewed the account. The rule traces to the Second Circuit’s 1993 decision in Clomon v. Jackson, where an attorney let his signature be used on mass mailings without reviewing files, and was refined in Greco v. Trauner, Cohen & Thomas, which approved disclaimers stating no attorney had personally reviewed the account.
Courts have not set a minimum review time or a required checklist. They look at what the attorney examined, how long it took, and whether legal judgment was exercised. Mandarich’s internal “Attorney Meaningful Involvement Procedure” — verifying debt ownership, confirming the debtor’s identity, and checking for impediments like bankruptcy or fraud — has repeatedly cleared that bar in federal court.10Orrick InfoBytes. 2nd Circuit Says Collection Letter Sent on Law Firm Letterhead Did Not Violate FDCPA That track record is why the letter-based theories keep losing on summary judgment before any class can be certified.
If Mandarich Is Suing You
Because the group cases have not produced relief, the real defenses are the ones raised in your own collection suit. Mandarich represents debt buyers rather than original creditors, and that opens up a recurring set of challenges consumer attorneys use against any debt buyer.
- Standing. A debt buyer must prove it owns the account by producing a chain of assignment from the original creditor forward. Missing or incomplete documentation can defeat the right to sue.
- Statute of limitations. Each state sets its own deadline. New York’s Consumer Credit Fairness Act, effective April 2022, shortened the limitation period on consumer credit transactions to three years, and a suit filed after the deadline can be defeated by raising the defense.
- Evidentiary gaps. Debt buyers often lack the original cardholder agreement, signed contract, or complete billing history needed to prove the balance. Incomplete records or inaccurate calculations are grounds to challenge the case.
The one step that matters more than any of these: file a timely answer. If you ignore the summons, the court will typically enter a default judgment, and from there the firm can move to garnish wages or levy bank accounts.
Consumer Complaints on Record
Mandarich holds an A+ rating and accreditation from the Better Business Bureau, with customer reviews on the BBB page that are uniformly negative. Complaints posted between 2023 and 2026 describe default judgments allegedly obtained without proper service, trouble recovering garnishment overpayments, and collection attempts on protected income such as Social Security disability.11Better Business Bureau. Mandarich Law Group LLP Customer Reviews A 2018 CFPB complaint alleged the firm sent court-style documents without case numbers to pressure a consumer about a case that had not been filed.12Get Out of Debt. Mandarich Law Group LLP CFPB Complaint The CFPB has not brought an enforcement action against Mandarich itself, though its client Portfolio Recovery Associates entered a 2015 CFPB consent order carrying more than $27 million in penalties and faced further CFPB accusations in 2023.