David McDevitt

David McDevitt is Senior Counsel at Lovein Ribman, P.C. He began his career litigating in federal courts and has established legal precedent in several U.S. appellate circuits. Representing both plaintiffs and defendants, he has taken over two dozen cases to jury trial, bench trial, or final arbitration hearing in his decade-long career. Since joining Lovein Ribman, P.C. in 2020, he has personally recovered over $6.5 million on behalf of his clients.

Mr. McDevitt represents clients on a wide variety of topics, including construction projects, commercial disputes between landlords and tenants, employment issues, and intellectual property rights. He has obtained or defended against temporary injunctions and represented clients at zoning board hearings.

Mr. McDevitt received his law degree from the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, from which he graduated cum laude. He received his B.A. (Public Policy Analysis – Economics) from Pomona College in 2007. Mr. McDevitt is admitted to practice law in Texas and Arizona.

Notable Decisions

Bultemeyer v. CenturyLink Inc., 788 F. App’x 558 (9th Cir. 2019) (a consumer’s allegation that a company accessed her credit report without authorization under the Fair Credit Reporting Act conferred standing under Article III of the United States Constitution)

Holzman v. Malcolm S. Gerald & Assocs., Inc., 920 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that a debt collection letter about a time-barred debt may be misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, even when the letter does not expressly offer to “settle” the debt)

Vangorden v. Second Round, Ltd. P’ship, 897 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2018) (holding that a debt collector’s disclosure that the consumer has a statutory right to dispute the debt does not exempt it from liability under the FDCPA for making false representations about the amount or status of the debt in the initial collection letter)

Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 836 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding that an attempt to collect a time-barred debt may constitute misleading collection practice under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, even in the absence of a threat of litigation)