Zachary A. Madonia

Listed in The Best Lawyers in America® Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants, 2021-2025 Listed in Benchmark Litigation "Future Star", 2023-2024 Listed in Birmingham Business Journal  NextGen: Law, 2023 Dewaine Quick, et al., v. EduCap, Inc., et al., 318 F.Supp. 3d 121 (D.D.C. July 12, 2018) Obtained dismissal with prejudice of nationwide class action involving student loans and asserting causes of action against client lender HSBC, HSBC’s third-party servicer and that servicer’s counsel under federal RICO, as well as other federal and state law claims. The court held that (1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divested the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) the doctrine of res judicata precluded plaintiffs’ claims; and (3) that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to allege claims against HSBC. Hewitt v. 21st Mortgage Corp., No. 2:16-cv-05719 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2017) Successfully obtained dismissal of a state-wide class action contending that the defendant mortgage lender and servicer had violated the FDCPA by failing to include the total amount of the plaintiffs’ debt in the first communication after obtaining servicing rights. In motion to dismiss, contended that despite contrary Third Circuit precedent the FDCPA should not apply to our client because our client was not a “debt collector;” argued that client was creditor because it had acquired plaintiffs’ note and was collecting on the note on its own behalf. Plaintiffs, relying on several Third Circuit decisions, contended that the defendant was nevertheless a “debt collector” under the FDCPA because at the time the defendant acquired plaintiffs’ debt, the debt was in default. While the motion to dismiss was pending, the Supreme Court decided Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017), which validated the interpretation of the term “debt collector,” and rejected the notion that the default status of the debt at the time of acquisition is relevant to determining whether a debt purchaser is a “debt collector.” As the court explained, the only relevant question is whether the debt is being collected “for another,” rather than for the entity itself (137 S. Ct. at 1724­-25). Based on the Supreme Court’s clear holding in Henson, the District of New Jersey dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Carr v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 16-cv-04036 (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2017) Successfully obtained dismissal of putative nationwide class action challenging whether mortgage servicers may file Form 1099-As with the IRS documenting the foreclosure of mortgaged property in their own names, or whether such forms must be filed in the name of the lender. In dismissing the complaint, the court agreed that the filing of a Form 1099-A with the IRS was not “debt collection” under the FDCPA (or its Georgia state analog). The court also agreed that even if the Form 1099-A should have been filed in the lender’s name, not the servicer’s, the plaintiff could not demonstrate any injury caused by the allegedly improper filing. Instead, plaintiff’s purported injury—an alleged increase in tax burden—was fairly traced to her underlying foreclosure and the subsequent forgiveness of her outstanding indebtedness, not to the filing of the Form 1099-A. Yeager v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 701387 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2017) Obtained judgment in client’s favor in case involving an allegedly delayed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act notice. The plaintiff claimed injury from the delay, and Bradley’s team spent three years in litigation persistently pointing out the lack of actual injury before winning the case. United States of America ex Rel. Kasowitz, Benson & Torres v. BASF Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-02269-RMC, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Lead counsel for defendant Covestro LLC (formerly Bayer MaterialScience) in defense of “reverse” False Claims Act case alleging four companies failed to report substantial risk information to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On October 23, 2017, the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims. Find additional case details here. Represented sewer system manufacturer facing claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Puerto Rico law. Successfully obtained summary judgment on all claims. Represented major pharmaceutical manufacturer in a patent damages trial, securing a nearly $100-million judgment for the client. Represented international gaming company and its CEO facing a federal securities fraud class action challenging its public disclosures. Represented publicly traded REIT facing monopolization and tortious interference claims in state and federal court. Successfully obtained dismissal of tortious interference claim. Represented large pharmaceutical company facing a federal antitrust class action. Successfully opposed class certification. Represented electronic health records company facing a breach of fiduciary duty suit challenging the proposed acquisition of another company. Successfully obtained dismissal of lawsuit. Represented large containerboard manufacturer in bankruptcy confirmation hearing. Represented consumer products firm and its directors facing a breach of fiduciary duty suit challenging the proposed sale of the company.