Code § 1788.7’s words “notwithstanding any other provision.” Code § 1788.15(a), which makes it a violation to knowingly employ improper service of process to collect a debt, is overridden by Civ. It further found that the debt collector need not know that the statement was false in order to be liable, holding that Cal. The Court of Appeal held that the Midland Defendants – as the debt collectors – may be held liable under the Rosenthal Act for falsely stating that substitute service had been achieved on Plaintiff/debtor, leading to entry of a default judgment against her. Plaintiff was also awarded her costs on appeal. Further, the Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Rosenthal Act cause of action and vacated the judgment awarding the Midland Defendants’ attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeal also noted that Plaintiff was not required to show that the Midland Defendants knowingly made false representations.Īs a result, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s granting of the Midland Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motions and remanded the matter with directions to dismiss those claims as moot. The Court of Appeal stated that Plaintiff showed that she would probably prevail on her claim under the Rosenthal Act and presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that the defendants falsely represented that they effected substituted service of process on her in the debt collection lawsuit. It ruled that Plaintiff’s equitable claims were moot, but that Plaintiff’s claim under the Rosenthal Act was not time-barred because there was evidence that the defendants engaged in efforts to garnish Plaintiff’s wages until at least one year before Plaintiff filed her lawsuit. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision granting the Midland Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion relating to the equitable claims, and it reversed the part of the trial court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claim under the Rosenthal Act. The trial court also awarded the Midland Defendants their attorneys’ fees. § 425.16). The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, asserting that Plaintiff failed to show that she would probably prevail on the merits of her claims. The Midland Defendants denied the allegations and filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s claims under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) law (Cal. The default judgment and subsequent collection efforts followed entry of the default judgment. Code § 1788 et seq.), arguing that Midland was a debt collector of consumer debt and had engaged in false and deceptive conduct in attempting to collect that debt since she was never served with process. She sought damages, penalties, and reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. (the “Midland Defendants”) – in the San Mateo County Superior Court. Plaintiff then filed her own complaint against the defendants – Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. She maintained that she was not aware of the lawsuit or the judgment before 2019 and had not been served with the complaint in the lawsuit. Plaintiff investigated and discovered the existence of a 2010 default judgment against her and in favor of Midland Funding, LLC for an alleged debt of $8,529.93 plus interest. Plaintiff claimed she had no knowledge of the lawsuit or the judgment against her before then. FACTSĪ dispute arose when Plaintiff’s employer told her in 2019 that it received an earningswithholding order seeking to garnish her wages. § 1692(e) for false statements made in collecting a debt or regarding the legal status of the debt. Civ. Code § 1788.17 incorporates into the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act the strict liability standard of 15 U.S.C. On Octothe California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4 (“Court of Appeals”) reversed the trial court’s Anti-SLAPP order striking the complaint filed by Kacie Lynn Young (“Plaintiff”), and held that Cal. Cashman-Kramer, Of Counsel at Sullivan Hill Rez & Engel analyzing a recent decision of interest. Business Law Debt collector may be held liable under the Rosenthal Act for falsely stating that substitute service had been achieved on the debtor, even if the debt collector did not know the statement was false.ĭear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee the following is a case update written by Kathleen A.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |