David McDevitt

David McDevitt is a Senior Counsel attorney at Lovein Ribman, P.C. He began his career practicing in the area of consumer protection, litigating actions in federal district courts around the country. He has established legal precedent in several U.S. appellate courts and has been appointed class counsel on behalf of thousands of individuals.

An Arizona native, Mr. McDevitt joined Lovein Ribman, P.C. to focus his practice on advocating for clients in the State of Texas. He has experience in all aspects of the litigation process, from negotiating superb outcomes for his clients in mediation to executing on judgments when a recalcitrant adversary refuses to pay. He has obtained favorable results for his clients at trial and in arbitration.

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)