Fair Debt Buying Practices Act in California

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," presumably as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 6.) It alleges that the subject loan agreement was reached in 2015; thus, Plaintiff could only have purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act.

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).)

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," presumably as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 6.) It alleges that the subject loan agreement was reached in 2015; thus, Plaintiff could only have purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act.

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," presumably as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 6.) It alleges that the subject loan agreement was reached in 2015; thus, Plaintiff could only have purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act.

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). 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," 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," 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."].)

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."].)

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."].)

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.

This is an action under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1788.50 et seq.) (the Act). Thus, no default or other judgment may be entered against a debtor unless business records, authenticated through a sworn declaration, are submitted by the debt buyer to the court to establish the facts required to be alleged by paragraphs (3) to (8), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 1788.58. (Civ. Code, § 1788.60, subd. (a).)

(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.)

DISCUSSION Applicable Law 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).

DISCUSSION Applicable Law 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).

DISCUSSION Applicable Law 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).

(“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.

Code 1788.58. 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).)

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).)

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).)

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).)

Proc., § 1788.50 et seq. [Fair Debt Buying Practices Act]). CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

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.

BACKGROUND This is a consumer class action brought pursuant to the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788.50-1788.64 (Debt Buyer Act), California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.33 (RFDCPA), and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (FDCPA).

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.

Plaintiff has utilized Judicial Council form CIV-105 Request for Entry of Default , which is [f]or use only in actions under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. The Note is entitled LoanMe, Inc. Small Business Loan and provides that the proceeds of this Loan will be used solely for business and commercial purposes and not for any agricultural, personal, family or household purpose. This is not a consumer transaction, as per Paragraph 4(a)(2) of CIV-105.

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.

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).)

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.

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). ...

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.

Fourth, Plaintiff is the assignee of the original debt in this matter, which involves a consumer credit transaction, and is therefore subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (Villalobos Decl., Exs. 1-6; Civ. Code, §§ 1788.2, 1788.50; see Davidson v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 283, 297 [mortgage falls within definitions of consumer debt and consumer credit transaction for purposes of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act].)

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.

LEGAL STANDARD 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).)

Because this is an action brought under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, a CIV-105 form is the proper form, and the declaration of military service is item 9 on this form, not number 8 as in the case with the CIV-100. By defaulting, a defendant is deemed to admit all material allegations of the complaint that are well pleaded. Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1156.

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

.: 23STCV06614 DEFAULT JUDGMENT This a Fair Debt Buying Practices Act action. On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff Credit Corp Solutions, Inc., assignee of Compass Bank (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Arusyak Ponchukyan (Defendant), and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive for: (1) Account Stated and (2) Open Book Account.

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)

Civil Code section 1788.58, which details the contents of a complaint brought by a debt buyer, provides in relevant part: (a) The complaint shall allege all of the following: . . . . (9) That the debt buyer has complied with Section 1788.52. (Civ. Code, § 1788.58(a).) Civil Code section 1788.58(b) also states that the complaint shall include: “A copy of the contract or other document described in subdivision (b) of Section 1788.52”. (Civ. Code, § 1788.58(b).)

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.

Background This is Fair Debt Buying Practices Act case. On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint, asserting several causes of action against Angel Mendez (Defendant) and Does 1-10, including for open book account, account stated, reasonable value of goods/services received/funds provided, promissory note, and quantum meruit. On October 10, 2024, an Order for Publication was filed. On December 20, 2024, Proof of Publication was filed.

Background This is a Fair Debt Buying Practices Act action. On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Medgomics Inc. (Medgomics), Steve Sommer (Sommer), and Does 1-10 for: (1) Open Book Account, (2) Account Stated, (3) Reasonable Value of Goods/Services Received/Funds Provided, (4) Agreement, (5) Promissory Note, and (6) Quantum Meruit.

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.

This action arises under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code Section 1788.50 et seq. Plaintiff alleges Defendant opened up a credit account with Cross River Bank, who assigned the account to Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims Defendant assented to the terms of the credit agreement and promised to pay Cross River Bank and its successors any amount of interest, charges, or fees on the credit account.

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

Velocity Investments, LLC (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1030, a decision interpreting the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act [“California's Act, unlike the federal FCRA as interpreted in Limon, does not prescribe statutory damages as a disjunctive alternative to ‘actual damages’; ‘the sum’ requires ‘statutory damages’ in addition to ‘[a]ny actual damages’ in individual actions, and ‘additional damages’ are available in class actions”].)

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.”

The Court does not agree with Plaintiffs that the ICRAA is akin to the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civ. Code § 1788.50 et seq), which was addressed in Guracar v. Student Loan Sols., LLC (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 330 ( Guracar ). In Guracar , the court held that the statutory language of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act does not require for plaintiffs to prove actual damages to establ ish standing. ( Id. at p. 344.)

Additionally, if Plaintiff purchased this debt from Pinnacle Bank or some other predecessor in interest, Plaintiff will need to submit the request for entry of default judgment on Judicial Council form CIV-105 to comply with the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).) CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background This is Fair Debt Buying Practices Act case. On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Angel Mendez (Defendant) and Does 1-10 for: (1) Open Book Account, (2) Account Stated, (3) Reasonable Value of Goods/Services Received/Funds Provided, (4) Agreement, (5) Promissory Note, and (6) Quantum Meruit. On October 10, 2024, an Order for Publication was filed. On December 20, 2024, Proof of Publication was filed.

Yes [If No, deny, use of CIV-100 is mandatory unless this is a Fair Debt Buying Practices Act case. CRC 3.1800(a)] b. Is this a debt buying case under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act? ¿ Yes ¿ No i. If so, did plaintiff file a form CIV-105? ¿ Yes ¿ No [If No, deny, use of CIV-105 is mandatory for Fair Debt Buying Practices Act claims. CRC 3.1800(a)] c. On the CIV-100, did plaintiff complete item 2?

Yes [If No, deny, use of CIV-100 is mandatory unless this is a Fair Debt Buying Practices Act case. CRC 3.1800(a)] b. Is this a debt buying case under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act? ¿ Yes ¿ No i. If so, did plaintiff file a form CIV-105? ¿ Yes ¿ No [If No, deny, use of CIV-105 is mandatory for Fair Debt Buying Practices Act claims. CRC 3.1800(a)] c. On the CIV-100, did plaintiff complete item 2?

(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.)

Where service of summons has not resulted in actual notice to a defendant in time to defend an action brought by a debt buyer (a person or entity that has bought consumer debt for collection purposes) under theFair Debt Buying Practices Act(Civ.C. §1788.50et seq.), a motion for relief can be brought within 6 years after entry of default or default judgment or 180 days after the first notice

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.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

.: 16CV300096 This is a certified class action under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (the “Debt Buyers Act” or “CFDBPA”), Civil Code section 1788.50–1788.64. Liability has been established. Cross-complainant Maria Canul now moves for summary judgment on the cross- complaint, asking the Court to determine damages. Cross-Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (“VPGI”) (collectively, “Cross- Defendants”), oppose the motion.

Further, the Court notes that California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a) requires that a request for default judgment be submitted on mandatory form CIV-100, form CIV-105 for cases subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, or form UD-116 for unlawful detainer matters, which Plaintiff has not yet filed in connection with his request for default judgment. A. Damages Plaintiffs Complaint seeks $385,000 in general damages. (See Complaint at Prayer ¶ 1.)

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.”

Mandatory Filings California Rule of Court 3.1800 sets forth specific requirements for the contents of an application for entry of default judgment: 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

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.

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 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