Fair Debt Buying Practices Act in California

(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.

(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.

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).)

(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.

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)”.

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."].)

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."].)

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."].)

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."].)

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."].)

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."].)

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."].)

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."].)

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."].)

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.

(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).])

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.)

(“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.

(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.

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.

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).)

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).)

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).)

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).)

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).)

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).)

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).)

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).)

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).)

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.

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.

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).)

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.

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).)

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). ...

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

(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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.”

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.

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".

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.)”

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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”

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.)

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.)

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”).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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).)

(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.

“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).)

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.