Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The Fair Debt Buying Practices act “only applies to consumer debts sold on or after January 1, 2014.” (Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal. App. 5th 1070, 1079 n. 3.)
The requirements of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act are found at Civil Code § 1788.58 which provides in relevant part:
In an action brought by a debt buyer on a consumer debt:
Civil Code § 1788.60 provides in relevant part:
“A credit card company may modify the terms of a written contract by sending new or additional terms to the cardholder and stating that the cardholder's continued use of the card constitutes acceptance of those terms.” (Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal. App. 5th at 1081 citing Szetela v. Discover Bank (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1100, concluding an amended cardholder agreement in the form of a "bill stuffer" accepted by the cardholder's continued use of the credit card is a generally enforceable adhesion contract; Meyers v. Guarantee Sav. & Loan Assn. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 307, 312, stating adhesion contracts generally enforceable absent other factors.)
“Under common law in California, a creditor may establish that a debtor owes it money on an ‘open book account’ by providing evidence of a ‘detailed statement, kept in a book, in the nature of debit and credit, arising out of contract or some fiduciary relation.’” (Interstate Group Administrators, Inc. v. Cravens, Dargan & Co. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 700, 708, fn. omitted.) “Where such a record exists, the court can determine the amount owed by computing all credits and debits entered in the book account.” (Id.)
“When a bank assigns a debt to a debt collector, the debt collector "undisputedly step[s] into the shoes of their respective assignors... taking that debt subject to any existing waivers or defenses.” (Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal. App. 5th at 1087 citing Terech v. First Resolution Management Corp. (N.D.Ill. 2012) 854 F.Supp.2d 537, 541.)
“Pursuant to California law,9 ‘[w]aiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right after knowledge of the facts.’” (Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal. App. 5th at 1087 citing Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 31.) “A waiver can be expressly stated or implied by conduct, but the party alleging a waiver has the burden of proving it by clear and convincing evidence.” (Id.) ”Whether a party waived a right is a question of fact and, accordingly, we will not reverse the superior court's finding so long as it is supported by sufficient evidence.” (Cavalry SPV I, LLC at 1087 citing St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1196.)
Midland requests a default judgment under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“FDBPA”). A plaintiff seeking default judgment under the FDBPA (Civ. Code, §1788.50 et seq.) must comply with various statutory requirements in order to obtain a default judgment.
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VS DAVID YI
20STCV29335
Mar 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].) Plaintiff alleges that it complied with portions of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (¶ 14.) As such, the requirements of the Act are applicable here.
PMGI FINANCIAL LLC VS. SMITH
37-2016-00025999-CL-CL-NC
Jun 19, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Analysis Recinto asserts the Complaint is uncertain because it is not clear when ACR acquired the debt, which, in turn, renders it unclear whether it is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. The Fair Debt Buying Practices Act applies to “all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014.” (Civ. Code, § 1788.2(d).) The terms of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”) apply to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (Civ. Code, § 1788.50(c).)
LCR ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC VS RENES RECINTO
20CMCV00183
Sep 29, 2020
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
(See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].) Plaintiff alleges that it complied with portions of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (¶ 14.) As such, the requirements of the Act are applicable here.
PMGI FINANCIAL LLC VS. SMITH
37-2016-00025999-CL-CL-NC
Sep 04, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
(See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].) Plaintiff alleges that it complied with portions of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (¶ 14.) As such, the requirements of the Act are applicable here.
PMGI FINANCIAL LLC VS. SMITH
37-2016-00025999-CL-CL-NC
Feb 20, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800 provides “a party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105)”.
BH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC VS VEGAN HOUSE RESTAURANT, ET AL.
18STCV07279
Aug 30, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Promisory Note
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 5.) It alleges that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC VS FLORES
37-2018-00051080-CL-CL-NC
Jul 31, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," presumably as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 5.) It alleges that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 4.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VS MARRUFO
37-2018-00043258-CL-CL-NC
May 15, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," presumably as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff's allegations indicate that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)
BH FINANCIAL GROUP LLC VS SMITH
37-2019-00018627-CL-CL-NC
Jan 22, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 6.) It alleges indicate that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)
CAVALRY SPV I LLC VS NAYLOR
37-2019-00009254-CL-CL-NC
Sep 25, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). It alleges that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 5.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK, N.A. VS LOPEZ
37-2017-00039489-CL-CL-NC
May 17, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). It alleges that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 5.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VS. RAMON
37-2017-00024375-CL-CL-NC
Apr 26, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," presumably as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 5.) It alleges that the subject credit-card account was purchased after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 4.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC VS ANDERSON
37-2018-00052208-CL-CL-NC
Dec 04, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, it thus appears the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)
CACH LLC VS VIVAR
37-2018-00058288-CL-CL-NC
Jul 03, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). It alleges that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)
CACH LLC VS GONZALEZ
37-2018-00050773-CL-CL-NC
Jul 03, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
Under an action of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civ. Code § 1788.50 et seq.), Plaintiff needs to use Mandatory JC Form CIV-105.
L.A . COMMERCIAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION VS THE PREMIER SHOP LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
19PSCV00911
Sep 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Promisory Note
(a), italics in original [A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105).])
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS T.N LUCKY INC
23PSCV00798
Oct 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a), [a] party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq ., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (Emphasis in original.)
M N M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. VS DONALD D. SWANK, ET AL.
19STCV39670
Feb 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(“A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105)”. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800). This motion was initially heard on October 7, 2020.
COUNTY OF SONOMA VS MAJOR
SCV-266342
Dec 01, 2020
Gary Nadler via Zoom
Sonoma County, CA
(a) [A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105).]) Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the request for entry of default judgment without prejudice.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. VS IMAN TRUCKING, INC.
23PSCV01315
Oct 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Fair Debt Buying Practices Act Requirements Because this action falls under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“FDBPA”), a plaintiff must meet additional requirements before a court may enter a default judgment: Cal Civ.
CACH LLC VS MI CHUNG
BC719652
May 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Discussion A party seeking a default judgment must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq ., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
BEAUTIFUL HABITAT, LLC, VS CSMDEVELOPMENT LLC,, ET AL.
21STCV32840
Apr 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Legal Standard A party seeking a default judgment on declarations for an action subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (CRC Rule 3.1800(a).)
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC VS IYAUNNA TOWERY, AN INDIVIDUAL
20STCV05598
Mar 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Discussion A party seeking a default judgment must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq ., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
ORLANDO GARCIA VS BLANCA BEATRIZ REYES
23STCV00838
Jun 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
A party seeking a default judgment must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq ., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
22AHCV01012
Feb 15, 2023
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
A party seeking a default judgment must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq ., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
22AHCV01012
May 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The court found that Plaintiff’s previous request for entry of default was submitted on form CIV-105, evidencing the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civil Code §§ 1788.50, et seq.) The court also found Plaintiff’s request for entry of default failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Code section 1788.58 for defaults by a debt buyer on consumer debt.(Civil Code § 1788.58, subdivisions (3)-(8).)
BH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC VS VEGAN HOUSE RESTAURANT, ET AL.
18STCV07279
Dec 02, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Promisory Note
A party seeking a default judgment must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq ., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
DONALD J. MATSON VS CHAO LI, ET AL.
21GDCV00201
May 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
A party seeking a default judgment must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq ., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
MATEO CARVAJAL VS FRED LU
20STCV31827
Jul 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
A party seeking a default judgment must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq ., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
DONALD J. MATSON VS CHAO LI, ET AL.
21GDCV00201
Jan 30, 2023
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a).) Here, Plaintiff has failed to include Judicial Council form CIV-100 in its moving papers, as required under rule 3.1800 of the California Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.
RREEF AMERICA REIT II CORP. DD, A MARYLAND CORPORATION VS FIVE STAR ONTARIO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21CHCV00652
Feb 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs application meets all requirements for default judgment, including the requirements under Civil Code section 1788.60 for authenticated business records in actions under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. Plaintiffs request for default judgment is granted . The court will sign the proposed judgment plaintiff submitted on form JUD-100.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS, INC. VS POGHOS POGHOSYAN
23STCV00221
Aug 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Furthermore, the Court notes that this action implicates the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (FDBPA) since Plaintiff is a debt buyer. (Civ. Code § 1788.50, subd. (a); Welch Decl., Ex. C.) The loans at issue appear to be for personal purposes and therefore constitute consumer debt for purposes of the FDBPA. (Civ. Code § 1788.2, subds. (e), (f).) This means Plaintiff must submit the request for entry of default judgment on Form CIV-105. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
ROCK CREEK CAPITAL, LLC VS PAMELA WITRAGO, ET AL.
22PSCV02056
Jan 11, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING: CONTINUE This is an action arising under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. As such, Plaintiff must complete the default package under the correct forms including CIV-105.
ARDEN SILVERMAN VS MAGGIE PANUCO, ET AL.
23VECV04788
Feb 26, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
A party seeking a default judgment must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq ., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
ANAHI MATEOS, ET AL. VS FIRST RESCUE AMBULANCE, INC.
20STCV09969
Jul 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Rule 3.1800(a)(7) provides: “A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV- 100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105). ...
34-2022-00328274-CU-PO-GDS
Feb 21, 2024
Sacramento County, CA
Background This is a Fair Debt Buying Practices Act case. On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff Credit Corp Solutions, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendant Teena Thomas (Defendant) and Does 1-15 for: 1. Breach of Contract On August 8, 2023, Defendants default was entered. An Order to Show Cause Re: Default is set for November 1, 2023. Discussion Plaintiffs Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice .
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS, INC. ASSIGNEE OF COMPASS BANK VS TEENA THOMAS
22PSCV01101
Nov 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Background This is a Fair Debt Buying Practices Act case. On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff Velocity Investments, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant Julio Regil (Defendant) and Does 1-10 for: 1. Breach of Contract 2. Open Book Account On June 13, 2023, Defendants default was entered.
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC VS JULIO REGIL
22PSCV01577
Jul 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff must fully complete form CIV-105 under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act and submit the following documents when filing under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800.
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS SEOG HONG
21STCV20438
Nov 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff must fully complete form CIV-105 under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act and submit the following documents when filing under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800.
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS SEOG HONG
21STCV20438
Nov 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Background This is a Fair Debt Buying Practices Act case. On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Guang Cui (Defendant) and Does 1-10 for: 1. Account Stated 2. Open Book Account On August 4, 2023, Defendants default was entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for November 7, 2023.
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS LLC VS GUANG Z CUI, AN INDIVIDUAL
23PSCV01712
Nov 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court held that Plaintiff must fully complete form CIV-105 under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act and submit the following documents when filing under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800. (See 11/16/21 Minute Order .) The OSC re Entry of Default Judgement was continued to today for Plaintiff to correct its submissions . II. ANALYSIS The request is DENIED.
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS SEOG HONG
21STCV20438
Jan 11, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court held that Plaintiff must fully complete form CIV-105 under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act and submit the following documents when filing under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800. (See 11/16/21 Minute Order .) The OSC re Entry of Default Judgement was continued to today for Plaintiff to correct its submissions . II. ANALYSIS The request is DENIED.
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS SEOG HONG
21STCV20438
Jan 11, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Background This is a Fair Debt Buying Practices Act case. On January 19, 2023, Plaintiff Persolve Legal Group, LLP (Plaintiff) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Myeong Lee (Defendant) and Does 1-100 for: 1. Open Book Account 2. Money Lent 3. Account Stated On June 2, 2023, Defendants default was entered. An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for September 6, 2023.
PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS MYEONG LEE
23PSCV00162
Sep 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Compliance with CRC 3.1800 (1) Use of CIV-100 (or CIV-105 per Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) YES (2) Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment N/A (No Does) (3) Declaration of non-military status for each defendant YES (4) Summary of the case YES (5) 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support YES (6) Exhibits (as necessary) YES (7) Interest computation (as necessary) N/A (8) Cost memorandum YES (9) Request for attorney fees (Local Rule 3.214) N/A (10) Proposed Judgment YES DAMAGES
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC VS GURGEN HAKOBKYOKHVYAN
19STCV03493
Oct 02, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Code, § 1788.58, subd. (a).) Here, plaintiff has not established that it has complied with Civil Code section 1788.60 or that it is excused from compliance. Rather, plaintiff has essentially resubmitted what was previously rejected.
2020-00541810
Apr 06, 2022
Ventura County, CA
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800(a) provides: A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105)&The following must be included in the documents filed with the clerk: (1)
KAROLA WEBER VS JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION
22STLC03036
Aug 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants answered, generally denying that any debt is owed and asserting various affirmative defenses, including that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and Piedmont violated the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. Defendants also filed a cross-complaint against Piedmont to redress its debt collection practices. The material facts are largely undisputed.
MSC20-01919
Sep 09, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
But Doherty also brought a claim under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code §§ 1788.50-1788.64 (“CFDBPA”), which became effective in 2014. (Stats.2013, c. 64 (S.B.233), § 2.) Cross-defendants do not mention this statute when they discuss which statute is earlier.
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VS. RACHEL DOHERTY
20CECG02758
Dec 01, 2021
Fresno County, CA
First Cause of Action for Violation of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (CFDBA) Cross-Defendants contend the Cross-Complaint does not state a cause of action under the CFDBA because they complied with the requirements imposed by the CFDBA. Cross-Complainant counters that they have sufficiently alleged violations of the CFDBA.
22-CLJ-02104
Jan 01, 2023
San Mateo County, CA
Additional statutory requirements are found in the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, codified as Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq. Of relevance here is Civil Code section 1788.60, subdivision (b), which states, “No default or other judgment may be entered against a debtor unless a copy of the contract or other document in subdivision (b) of Section 1788.52, authenticated through a sworn declaration, has been submitted by the debt buyer to the Court.”
MSW CAPITAL, LLC VS. CROSSLEY
MCRDCVG17-0000961-000
Jun 18, 2018
Shasta County, CA
INTRODUCTION 24 Plaintiff David Chai (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative consumer class action pursuant to 25 the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act against defendants Velocity Investments, LLC and 26 Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). Attorneys Justin Penn and Shalini 27 Bhasker of Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP (collectively, the “Moving Parties”), counsel for 28 Defendants, move to withdraw as counsel of record. 1 II.
CHAI V. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL.
20CV373916
May 26, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Multiple specific documents are required, such as: (1) form CIV 105 (for actions under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act), (2) a brief summary of the case; (3) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (4) interest computations as necessary; (5) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS ROMANOS SAINIDIS, AN INDIVIDUAL
23SMCV00284
Jun 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(Civil Code § 1788.50(d).) Defendant argues Plaintiff, as a debt buyer, failed to include the allegations required by Civil Code 1788.58. Plaintiff’s complaint failed to include information such as the debt balance at charge off and explanation of the amount, nature, and reason for post-charge off interest and fees.
MSC21-02279
Mar 14, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
Defendant argues the Rosenthal Act, and, in particular, the requirements of section 1788.58 apply to assignees such as plaintiff and to the present debt. The opposition argues this is a straight-forward breach of contract action which has been properly alleged as to the nature of the debt and the amount owing. The opposition fails to cite to any authority, however, which exempts plaintiff from the requirements of section 1788.58.
PIEDMONT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC VS THACKER
RIC2000004
Aug 11, 2020
Riverside County, CA
INTRODUCTION 23 This is a putative class action brought by plaintiff Tabitha Newsom (“Plaintiff”) pursuant 24 to the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”). According to the Complaint, 25 filed on September 15, 2016, Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred a financial obligation in the 26 form of a consumer credit account issued by Citibank, N.A. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff denies 27 any debt is owed. (Ibid.)
NEWSOM V. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC
2016-1-CV-299973
Mar 01, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
In addition, Sibiryo alleges that “ Cross-Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [“FDCPA”]15 USC 1692; The Rosenthal Act Civil Code section 1788.17 [FDCPA]; The Fair Debt Buying Practices Act Civil Code 1788.50 as well as 12 U.S.C. §§5531, 5536(a)(1)(B).” Here, the Court has already found that Sibiryo has not stated a claim under either the FDCPA or the R FDCPA. Furthermore, Civil Code Section 1788.50 contains definitions and not an apparent private right of action.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS VITALY SIBIRYOV
20SMCV00436
Apr 27, 2021
Timothy Lee Johnson
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Collections
Substantive First Cause of Action—Breach of Contract and Second Cause of Action—Breach of Personal Guarantee Defendant argues that the complaint fails because plaintiff failed to make allegations in the pleading required under Civil Code § 1788.58. As pointed out in the opposition, Civil Code § 1788.58 applies to “an action brought by a debt buyer on a consumer debt.” Civil Code § 1788.50 (c) states, “Terms defined in Title 1.6C (commencing with Section 1788) shall apply to this title.”
CACH LLC VS. JORELL ESTEBAN
EC065610
Feb 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff filed suit against MCM on October 15, 2019, asserting a single cause of action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code sections 1788.50–1788.64. II.
EDWARD RAZO MORALES V. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.
19CV356585
Dec 10, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
The Court willthus sustain the demurrer as to the second cause of action Third Cause of Action, Violations of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, California Civil Code § 1788.50, et. seq. – Cross-Defendants contend the FXC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as to Alice and fails to sufficiently factually allege the debt at issue is "charged-off consumer debt".
VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS SPENCER DAVIS, ET AL.
19BBCV00011
Aug 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Promisory Note
Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Reitzfeld only) The Fair Debt Buying Practices act “only applies to consumer debts sold on or after January 1, 2014.” Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal. App. 5th 1070, 1079 n. 3. Plaintiff has not alleged that the debt in question is a consumer debt within the scope of the FBBPA.
CAMPOY VS. REITZFELD
30-2019-01074171
Nov 07, 2019
Orange County, CA
The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 26, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 23, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 21, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 22, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 24, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 25, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 27, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
On July 12, 2022, Stephens filed a cross-complaint against Piedmont to redress its debt collection practices, asserting causes of action for violation of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act and federal and state Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts. On August 15, 2022, Piedmont filed its answer to the cross- complaint asserting fourteen affirmative defenses.
MSC20-01919
Nov 14, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
The Cross-Complaint sets forth the 9 following causes of action: (1) California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act; (2) Fair Debt 10 Collection Practices Act; and (3) Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 11 Sipin now moves for leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint. Sipin also requests 12 that this case be designated complex based on the addition of class claims in the First Amended 13 Cross-Complaint. 14 II.
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS VS. AMENDED CLASS ACTION CROSS COMPLAINT AND TO RECLASSIFY FARRAH SIPIN
20CV370503
Aug 25, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
On January 22, 2018, plaintiff Edwards filed a complaint against defendant SIG asserting a single cause of action for violation of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”), Civil Code sections 1788.50 – 1788.64. On March 19, 2018, defendant SIG filed the motion now before the court, a demurrer to plaintiff Edwards’ complaint. I. Defendant SIG’s demurrer to plaintiff Edwards’ complaint is OVERRULED. A. Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41.
MARC BESSE, ET AL. V. INSIGHTEC, LTD, ET AL.
17CV319427
Jun 21, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
The complaint satisfies the pleading and documentation standards of Civil Code section 1788.52(b) and 1788.58, applicable to debt buyers, and states facts sufficient to constitute common counts for account stated and open book account. The complaint is not incomprehensible, and any minor ambiguities can be clarified through discovery." (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)
SECOND ROUND SUB, LLC VS LANCASTER
RG19007847
Jun 04, 2021
Alameda County, CA
The complaint sets for the required allegations pursuant to Civil Code section 1788.58. The complaint need not be verified. The allegations set for in the complaint and any defenses thereto must be the subject of evidentiary proceedings before judgment can be entered. At this point, Plaintiff has satisfied the pleading requirements by placing Defendant on notice of the claims Plaintiff is asserting.
CAVALRY VS. ECHOLS
MSL19-00923
Jun 24, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
Re: Pleading Requirements of Civil Code § 1788.58. Plaintiff alleges that it is a debt buyer. Complaint ¶ 1. Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements set forth in Civil Code § 1788.58(a)(4) & (b): In an action brought by a debt buyer on a consumer debt: (a) The complaint shall allege all of the following: (1) That the plaintiff is a debt buyer.
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS MICHAEL CORNWELL
BC693489
Aug 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Whether Plaintiff has established admissions on its side or not, it is a debt buyer and, as such, cannot obtain a judgment on the pleadings absent the evidence required by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq. With this motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff seeks an "other judgment." But it cannot obtain such a judgment absent the submission of "business records, authenticated through a sworn declaration." Such a declaration cannot be considered in ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC VS. KINNAMAN
37-2016-00037257-CL-CL-NC
Feb 22, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Collections
Collections
INTRODUCTION 23 This is a putative class action brought by plaintiff Marla Marie Davis (“Plaintiff”) 24 pursuant to the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”). According to the 25 Complaint, filed on October 26, 2016, Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred a financial obligation 26 in the form of a consumer credit account issued by Citibank, N.A. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff 27 denies any debt is owed. (Ibid.)
DAVIS V. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC
2016-1-CV-301730
Aug 16, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
The Court denied that application on 4-14-21, finding: “The declaration from the debt buyer is insufficient to authenticate the business records necessary to establish the facts required by Civil Code section 1788.58(a) (3) to (8) and the contract or other document required by subdivision (b). (Civil Code section 1788.60.)”
LCS CAPITAL LLC VS ANDRADE
RIC2003222
Apr 06, 2022
Riverside County, CA
The FACC alleges the following causes of action: (1) violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (against SLS only), (2) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice At (15 U.S.C. §§1692-1692p), (3) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civil. Code §§1788-1788.33.) and (4) violations of the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act ( Cal. Civ. Code §§1788.200-1788.211.)
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Sep 03, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FACC alleges the following causes of action: (1) violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (against SLS only), (2) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice At (15 U.S.C. §§1692-1692p), (3) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civil. Code §§1788-1788.33.) and (4) violations of the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act ( Cal. Civ. Code §§1788.200-1788.211.)
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Sep 02, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FACC alleges the following causes of action: (1) violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (against SLS only), (2) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice At (15 U.S.C. §§1692-1692p), (3) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civil. Code §§1788-1788.33.) and (4) violations of the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act ( Cal. Civ. Code §§1788.200-1788.211.)
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Aug 31, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FACC alleges the following causes of action: (1) violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (against SLS only), (2) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice At (15 U.S.C. §§1692-1692p), (3) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civil. Code §§1788-1788.33.) and (4) violations of the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act ( Cal. Civ. Code §§1788.200-1788.211.)
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Sep 05, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FACC alleges the following causes of action: (1) violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (against SLS only), (2) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice At (15 U.S.C. §§1692-1692p), (3) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civil. Code §§1788-1788.33.) and (4) violations of the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act ( Cal. Civ. Code §§1788.200-1788.211.)
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Sep 04, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FACC alleges the following causes of action: (1) violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (against SLS only), (2) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice At (15 U.S.C. §§1692-1692p), (3) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civil. Code §§1788-1788.33.) and (4) violations of the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act ( Cal. Civ. Code §§1788.200-1788.211.)
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Sep 06, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The FACC alleges the following causes of action: (1) violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (against SLS only), (2) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice At (15 U.S.C. §§1692-1692p), (3) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civil. Code §§1788-1788.33.) and (4) violations of the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act ( Cal. Civ. Code §§1788.200-1788.211.)
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Sep 01, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
On November 12, 2020, the Stephenses filed a Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages, and later a First Amended Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages (“FACC”), asserting causes of action for (1) violation of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code §§ 1788.50-1788.64 (“CFDBPA”), (2) the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692- 1692p (“FDCPA”) and (3) the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code § 1788- 1788.33 (“RFDCPA”
PIEDMONT CAPITAL VS TERRY STEPHENS
MSC20-01919
Dec 29, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
INTRODUCTION 23 This is a putative class action brought by plaintiff Tabitha Newsom (“Plaintiff”) pursuant 24 to the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”). According to the Complaint, 25 filed on September 15, 2016, Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred a financial obligation in the 26 form of a consumer credit account issued by Citibank, N.A. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff denies 27 any debt is owed. (Ibid.)
NEWSOM V. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC
2016-1-CV-299973
Oct 12, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
INTRODUCTION 23 This is a putative class action brought by plaintiff Tabitha Newsom (“Plaintiff”) pursuant 24 to the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”). According to the Complaint, 25 filed on September 15, 2016, Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred a financial obligation in the 26 form of a consumer credit account issued by Citibank, N.A. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff denies 27 any debt is owed. (Ibid.)
NEWSOM V. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC
2016-1-CV-299973
Oct 12, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Guzman filed a cross- complaint alleging putative class claims under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, California Civil Code sections 1788.50–1788.64 (“CFDBPA”); the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1692-1692p (“FDCPA”); and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code sections 1788-1788.33 (“RFDCPA”).
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS, INC. V. LORIE GUZMAN
19CV361005
Apr 01, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Plaintiff presents copies of the records, and the document authorizing recovery by CMRE Financial Services, and Ray declares that CMRE is not a Debt Buyer pursuant to Civil Code, section 1788.50, in that Plaintiff did not purchase this debt as a charged-off debt. Plaintiff’s documentation is sufficient to support the requested damages of $44,399.43.[1] Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code, section 1717.5.
CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES INC VS MARIA EDWARDS ET AL
BC640728
Jun 28, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The Cross-Complaint sets forth the following 8 causes of action: (1) California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (against Velocity); (2) Fair Debt 9 Collection Practices Act (against all cross-defendants); and (3) Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection 10 Practices Act (against all cross-defendants). 11 On January 29, 2021, Jayawardena filed an amendment to the Cross-Complaint 12 substituting Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) for Roe 1. On May 7, 2021, VPGI filed a 13 special motion to strike.
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC V. JAYAWARDENA
19CV357372
Jul 28, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Code, §§ 1458, 1788.58; Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1032.) “Once a claim has been assigned, the assignee is the owner and has the right to sue on it.” (Searles Valley Minerals Operations Inc. v. Ralph M. Parsons Service Co. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1402.) The complaint therefore sufficiently alleges the right of plaintiff to sue and states a cause of action.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC VS JENNIFER M FREDERICKS
21CV03383
Nov 01, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Code, §§ 1458, 1788.58; Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1032.) “Once a claim has been assigned, the assignee is the owner and has the right to sue on it.” (Searles Valley Minerals Operations Inc. v. Ralph M. Parsons Service Co. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1402.) The complaint therefore sufficiently alleges the right of plaintiff to sue and states a cause of action.
NICHOLAS LEWIS ET AL VS COTTAGE HEALTH INC ET AL
20CV01587
Nov 01, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Additionally, CCS is a “debt buyer” as that term is defined by Civil Code section 1788.50 (“Section 1788.50”), subdivision (a)(1), attempting to collect a “charged-off consumer debt” as that term is defined by Section 1788.50, subdivision (a)(2). (UMF Nos. 10, 11.) b.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC, VS. LILIANA GONZALEZ
19CV345863
Feb 04, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Code § 1788.50 et seq.) Third, Rule 3.1806 of the California Rules of Court requires the plaintiff to submit the original loan agreement or a declaration in lieu of the original with the default judgment package. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1806; Kahn v. Lasordas Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1123.) Plaintiff has not submitted the original or declaration in lieu of the original.
RED TARGET, LLC VS BRETT MARTIN TOBIN
23PSCV01181
Nov 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(See Civil Code § 1788.50(d). Section 1788.61 specifically provides, however, that “this section” applies to “any judgment entered on or after January 1, 2010.” There are two ways in which this apparent conflict can be resolved. One might argue that the January 1, 2014 purchase-date requirement is the predicate to application of any provision of the Act, followed by the requirement that, a party pleading under section 1788.61 must also show that the judgment was entered on or after January 1, 2010.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY VS. EUGENE
MSL14-01696
Feb 06, 2017
Ed Weil
Contra Costa County, CA
Civil Code, § 1788.50, subd. (d).) “Consumer debt” means “money, property or their equivalent, due or owing or alleged to be due or owing from a natural person by reason of a consumer credit transaction.” (Cal. Civil Code, § 1788.2, subd. (f).)
NEXTWAVE ENTERPRISES LLC VS KMFG IND LLC
16K06582
Feb 25, 2019
James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang
Los Angeles County, CA
(Civil Code 1788.50(a)(1).) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he loaned money to defendant himself, not that he purchased a debt owed by defendant to someone else. Defendant may well have a point that plaintiff’s claim is time-barred. The complaint alleges that funds were loaned to defendant in 1996 and 1997, and that defendant signed a promissory note in 1999. However, in order to defend this action on the merits, defendant needs to file a proper motion for relief from default, supported by evidence.
SHIO VS. WANG
30-2019-01101337-CU-CL-CJC
Jul 24, 2020
Orange County, CA
“A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Code section 1788.50 et seq ...” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a).)
JEFFREY FORER, ET AL. VS JOAN CHANG, ET AL.
19STCV45978
Jul 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Code section 1788.50 et seq. , form CIV 105 , (2) a brief summary of the case; (3) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (4) interest computations as necessary; (5) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC VS JASON E YASELLI
20SMCV01950
May 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Code, § 1788.50, subd. (a)(1).) Alternatively, Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) states that “[t]he court may, .... on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) “California is a jurisdiction where the original service of process, which confers jurisdiction, must conform to statutory requirements or all that follows is void.” ( Honda Motor Co. v.
LAM08CL1046
Jun 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.