Russell S. Thompson IV

Russell S. Thompson IV
Managing Partner

5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
Mesa, AZ 85206
Direct: (602) 388-8898
Toll Free: (888) 332-7252, ext. 338
Facsimile: (866)317–2674
Email: rthompson@thompsonconsumerlaw.com

Russell S. Thompson IV has dedicated his legal career almost exclusively to litigation under consumer protection laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Credit Repair Organizations Act, the Consumer Leasing Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Mr. Thompson has also represented individuals in immigration matters before the United States Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and briefed such matters before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He handled immigration matters such as bond proceedings, cancellations of removal, adjustment of status, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Mr. Thompson currently represents consumers in individual and class action lawsuits, and has successfully briefed and argued complex consumer law issues in both state and federal courts. Mr. Thompson, a New York native, moved to Arizona in 2009 after spending considerable time managing restaurants in Florida. During his time at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Mr. Thompson became an Arizona State Law Journal Associate Editor, participated in the Innovation Advancement Program’s Legal Clinic, and graduated with a Certificate in Law, Science & Technology: Intellectual Property. Mr. Thompson now serves as the managing partner of Thompson Consumer Law Group and is committed to protecting the rights of consumers.

Education

    • J.D., Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, 2011
    • B.A. Political Science, Economics minor, Plattsburgh State University, 2004

Bar Admissions

    • Arizona

District Court Admissions

    • U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
    • U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas
    • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana
    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana
    • U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska
    • U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court, Western District of New York
    • U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota
    • U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma
    • U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin

Court of Appeal Admissions

    • United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Areas of Practice

    • Consumer Finance Litigation
    • Consumer Protection
    • Class Actions
    • Lemon Law
    • RV Defect Litigation
    • Debt Settlement
    • Appeals

Notable Decisions

Alexander v. Bill Luke Chrysler, Jeep & Dodge, Inc., No. 1 CA-CV 13-03024 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 27, 2014) – The Arizona Court of Appeals for Division One affirmed the Maricopa County Superior Court’s order granting the consumer-plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the defendant’s defamation counterclaim. The Court of Appeals found that the consumer’s statements to the Better Business Bureau about her vehicle purchase with the dealership were either substantially true or expressions of opinion and therefore were not actionable as defamation.

Bultemeyer v. Systems & Services Technologies, Inc., No. CV12–0998, 2012 WL 4458138 (D. Ariz. Sept. 26, 2012) – The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona refused a debt collector’s motion to compel arbitration of a student loan borrower’s putative class action suit that alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The debt collector argued that the FDCPA claims were within the scope of a valid mandatory arbitration agreement with a class-action waiver contained in the enrollment agreement between the school and the student. The court rejected the debt collector’s argument that, as a nonsignatory to the agreement, doctrines of equitable estoppel, agency, and third-party beneficiary status all supported its right to compel arbitration in this case. While the borrower’s FDCPA claims against the debt collector “would not exist but for her underlying enrollment agreement,” the court concluded that resolution of the borrower’s FDCPA claims did not depend on the terms of the enrollment agreement. The debt collector also failed to demonstrate that it entered into an implied agency relationship with the school to collect payments on the school’s behalf. “Holding a principal accountable for actions it ratified is not the same as bringing an implied agent within the scope of the principal’s arbitration agreement,” the court explained. The debt collector presented no evidence that it entered into an agency relationship with the school, that the school ratified its actions, or that the school exercised supervision or control over its debt collection practices. The court also found unpersuasive the debt collector’s argument that it was entitled to invoke the arbitration provision as a third-party beneficiary, finding “no evidence in the contract that it was intended for [the debt collector]’s benefit. As the borrower therefore was not bound by the arbitration agreement as to her FDCPA claims, the district court denied the debt collector’s motion to compel arbitration and its motion to strike the class allegations.

Dove v. Moody, Jones, Ingino & Morehead, P.A., No. 3:15-cv-251-J-32JRK (M.D. Fla. April 18, 2016) – The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted final approval of a class action settlement under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq., and certified TCLG attorneys Russell S. Thompson IV and David N. McDevitt, as well as Alex Weisberg of Weisberg Consumer Law Group, P.A., as class counsel. TCLG represented Ms. Dove and the unnamed class members alleging Defendant violated the EFTA at § 1693e(a) by initiating a preauthorized electronic fund transfer out of the bank accounts of the Class Members without having first obtained written authorization and/or providing a copy of such authorization to the Class Members at the time of its execution.