Top
KRW Lawyers KRW Lawyers
ASBESTOS 866-644-4020
MAIN OFFICE 855-770-4045

Andrew Thomasson

CONSUMER & COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP, CO-CHAIR, OF COUNSEL ATTORNEY

Andrew “Andy” Thomasson co-chairs KRW Lawyers’ Consumer & Complex Litigation Group. His entire career has centered on representing consumers in state and federal complex litigation including class actions and appeals, and primarily involving claims under consumer-protection statutes such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and analogous state laws together with claims arising from data breaches, unlawful tracking and interception, and invasion of privacy.

Courts have appointed him class counsel in more than seventy certified consumer class actions across fourteen federal districts throughout the nation and by New Jersey state courts. He has also briefed and argued appeals in several United States Courts of Appeals, and his work has produced published, precedential decisions in the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits.

Among his class results, in 2021 Andy certified and obtained final approval of a settlement on behalf of 28,569 Texas residents that permanently waived $41.2 million in medical debts, delivered $100,000 in class damages, required deletion of class members’ negative credit-reporting tradelines, and secured a mandatory injunction compelling the defendants to disclose prominently in their letters whether the debts being collected (1) are time-barred and thus legally unenforceable and (2) can still be reported to credit bureaus. Monroe v. AssetCare, LLC, No. 4:19-cv-05039 (S.D. Tex.) (Rosenthal, C.J.). The United States Trustee twice appointed him to serve on official committees of unsecured creditors in Chapter 11 cases filed by publicly traded companies in the Southern District of New York and Delaware, and he was elected chairman of one such committee.

His matters have been reported in The New York Times, Bloomberg, ProPublica, Reuters, the New York Law Journal, the New Jersey Law Journal, and Law360. He is peer-review rated by Martindale-Hubbell and has presented for the State Bar of Texas Advanced Consumer and Commercial Law conference.

Published Decisions

  • Steffek v. Client Services, Inc., 948 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2020)
    • Obtained reversal of summary judgment entered against certified class of Wisconsin consumers, reinstating the class’s claims. The Seventh Circuit held that a collection letter violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) if it does not identify a current creditor clearly enough for an unsophisticated consumer to do so without guesswork—and the creditor's actual identity was beside the point because the letters referenced “Chase Bank” and an account number without stating whether Chase still owned the debts.
  • Heredia v. Capital Management Services, L.P., 942 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2019)
    • Obtained reversal of dismissal; the court held that collection letters falsely stated a creditor “may” file an IRS Form 1099-C on a settled account when the creditor would never actually do so constitutes an empty threat capable of misleading unsophisticated consumers.
  • Levins v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, 902 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2018)
    • Reversed dismissal, establishing that a collector’s failure to use its true name in collection voicemails violates the FDCPA’s prohibitions on making false or misleading representations and placing calls without meaningfully disclosing the caller’s identity.
  • Boucher v. Finance System of Green Bay, Inc., 880 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2018)
    • The Seventh Circuit reversed dismissal, holding that debt collectors cannot immunize themselves from FDCPA liability by blindly copying and pasting the Court’s previously approved safe harbor language—"[b]ecause of interest, late charges and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater"—when the language is inaccurate under the circumstances. The Court determined the debt collector’s use of its safe harbor language was materially false and misleading because "late charges and other charges" could not lawfully be imposed on the debt and, therefore, that language may influence a consumer’s decision whether to use their scarce resources to prioritize paying that debt instead of others. The Boucher decision has been cited 394 times by courts including the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits.
  • Panico v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 879 F.3d 56 (3d Cir. 2018)
    • Reversed entry of summary judgment against a consumer. The Third Circuit held that Delaware’s tolling statute does not apply to non-Delaware defendants who are amenable to service in the chosen forum, notwithstanding the parties’ contractual Delaware choice-of-law provision.
  • Avila v. Riexinger & Associates, LLC, 817 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016)
    • The Second Circuit’s ruling reversed dismissal and set the disclosure standard—and companion safe-harbor language—requiring collectors whose written communications state a debt’s "current balance" to also if the debt’s balance may increase over time from accruing interest and fees. now widely followed for collection communications that state a balance Established that a collection letter stating a balance must disclose that the balance may increase over time. The Avila decision has been cited 241 times by courts sitting in every federal circuit.
  • Franco v. Allied Interstate LLC, 602 F. App’x 40 (2d Cir. 2015); 718 F. App’x 1 (2d Cir. 2018)
    • Twice obtained reversal of judgments premised on trial court’s erroneous conclusion that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer mooted plaintiff’s claim depriving them of Article III standing. The Second Circuit's rulings kept the case alive through the period in which the United States Supreme Court ultimately confirmed, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer does not moot a plaintiff's claim.
  • Bock v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, 658 F. App’x 63 (3d Cir. 2016), on remand, 254 F. Supp. 3d 724 (D.N.J. 2017), recon. denied, No. 11-7593 (KM) (SCM), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174241 (D.N.J. Oct. 19, 2017)
    • After the Third Circuit remanded for reconsideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the district court held that the false implication of meaningful attorney involvement in a collection complaint injured a consumer’s substantive right protected by the FDCPA—a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.
  • Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC v. Breen, 757 F. App’x 130 (3d Cir. 2018)
    • Held that an attorney who acknowledged a client’s litigation-funding agreement had a collateral-estoppel defense where another court had already determined the agreement was usurious and champertous and, therefore, unenforceable.
  • Vandehey v. Client Services, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 3d 956 (E.D. Wis. 2019)
    • The court held that a potentially small per-member recovery does not defeat the "superiority" requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), recognizing that the class device is often the only practical way to vindicate modest consumer claims.

Notable Appointments

  • Appointed by United States Bankruptcy Trustee to serve on Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the following consolidated Chapter 11 cases filed by publicly traded companies:
    • In re Pernix Sleep, Inc., et al., District of Delaware (Case No. 19-10323) [Committee Chairman]; and
    • In re SquareTwo Financial Services Corporation, Southern District of New York (Case No. 17-10659 jlg).
  • Class counsel in more than seventy certified consumer class actions, including matters in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York; the District of New Jersey; the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin; the Western and Southern Districts of Texas; the Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Pennsylvania; the Southern District of Florida; the Central District of Illinois; the District of Kansas; and the Superior Court of New Jersey. A complete schedule is available on request.

Speaking Engagements

  • State Bar of Texas, Advanced Consumer & Commercial Law CLE, Speaker, 19th Annual Conference (2023)
  • Legal Services of New Jersey, CLE on Updates & Developments re: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Speaker (2016)

Bar admissions

  • State Courts:
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
  • Federal Courts:
    • U.S. Courts of Appeals: Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits
    • U.S. District Courts: District of New Jersey; Northern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas; Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas; District of Colorado; Northern District of Florida; Central and Northern Districts of Illinois; Southern District of Indiana; Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan; Northern District of Oklahoma; Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin

Honors & Recognition

  • New Jersey Rising Stars—Super Lawyers (2018-2023)
  • Martindale-Hubbell, Peer-Reviewed (2016-present)

Education

  • Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego
    • Juris Doctor (pro bono honors)
    • Moot Court, Alternative Dispute Resolution Team
  • Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, Arkansas
    • B.A., Political Science; Minor, German Studies (with honors)

Selected News Articles

Contact

Email: Andrew@KRWlawyers.com

Phone: (973) 665-2056

Office: 350 Springfield Avenue, Suite 200, Summit, New Jersey 07901

Andrew@KRWlawyers.com · (973) 665-2056
350 Springfield Avenue, Suite 200, Summit, New Jersey 07901

    We Win, or It's Free - That's Our Guarantee

    Contact Us Today

    Over $1 billion recovered for our injured clients