What is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?

Useful Rulings on Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Recent Rulings on Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

EDWARD RANDOLPH DAYTON V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ET AL.

McCarthy & Holthus LLP (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1029 (Obduskey) to this case. 15 U.S.C. 1692g, subdivision (b) is part of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”). The parties’ arguments hinge on whether or not Plaintiff has adequately pled that Defendant acted as a “debt collector” collecting on a “debt” within the meaning of the Act.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

LORIE ANN GUZMAN V. MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, ET AL.

Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

BEACH SWINGS, LLC VS VAULT MEDIA GROUP LLC, ET AL.

Defendant also argues that The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) (15 U.S.C. §1692, et. seq.) applies requiring a validation notice stating that the consumer has 30 days following the receipt of the communication to dispute the validity of the debt. However, the failure to include the validation notice does not invalidate the notice to quit or the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

GREGORY RANDOLPH VS CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK OPPOSITION: Filed on June 11, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None REPLY: Filed on June 18, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None ANALYSIS: Background On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff Gregory Randolph (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, conversion, and negligence against Defendant

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREGORY RANDOLPH VS CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK OPPOSITION: Filed on June 11, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None REPLY: Filed on June 18, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None ANALYSIS: Background On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff Gregory Randolph (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, conversion, and negligence against Defendant

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PADILLA V DEUTSCHE BANK

PHH Mortgage Corp. asserting a single cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendants Deutsche Bank, MERS, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC a.k.a.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

EDWARD RANDOLPH DAYTON V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

The parties’ arguments hinge on whether or not Plaintiff has adequately pled that Defendant acted as a “debt collector” collecting on a “debt” within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court requests that the parties submit supplemental briefing addressing this question in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1029. Said supplemental briefing shall be filed and contemporaneously served by June 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

SHERI MURRAY V. GERALD HARTZELL

Code, §§ 1940.2, 1942.5); (6) violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”) (Civ. Code, § 1788, et seq.); and (7) for a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) (15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.) Plaintiffs allege that on August 15, 2016, Sheri and Tom entered into a written residential lease agreement with Walker on behalf of Hartzell to rent property located in Los Osos, California (the “Subject Premises”). (Complaint, ¶ 13; Exh. A to the Complaint.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2020

ESTELLE YANCEY VS SELENE FINANCE, LP ET AL.

Civil Code 1788 is commonly referred to as the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act generally forbids unlawful or unfair business practices in the collection of debts. At paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Defendants told her that there was no issue recording a Notice of Trustee’s Sale while her complete loan modification application was pending when the law prohibits such action.

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2020

CREDIT CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. V. PAREDES

On October 21, 2019, Paredes filed the Cross-Complaint, alleging that CCS violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act” or the “Act”) by engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices, particularly by making false statements or representations in the Complaint. On November 25, 2019, CCS filed the instant special motion to strike the Cross- Complaint in its entirety. Paredes opposes the motion.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.

The demurrer to the Fourth cause of action for a violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is overruled. Based on the allegations of violations of unfair practices with regard to the RFDCPA, the demurrer to the Fifth cause of action for a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 ff. is overruled. Defendant’s demurrer is partially overruled and partially sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

PADILLA V. DEUTSCHE BANK

Plaintiff opposes the demurrers on the following grounds: a lender collecting on a loan by foreclosure is a “debt collector” within the meaning of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; while defendants assert that plaintiff owes a debt to them, the debt is not due and owed to defendants and the collection of the loan by defendants violates the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; plaintiff has adequately alleged defendants are attempting to collect a debt obligation without first possessing

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

STRICKLAND V. LIL’ WAVE FIN., INC., ET AL.

Defendants' demurrer to the eighth cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants engaged in any harassing, abusive, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable conduct in collecting or attempting to collect on Defendants' loans, but object to the character and enforceability of express terms of the loan agreement regarding the imposition of late fees and the consequences of default.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.

The demurrer to the Fourth cause of action for a violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is overruled. Based on the allegations of violations of unfair practices with regard to the RFDCPA, the demurrer to the Fifth cause of action for a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 ff. is overruled. Defendant’s demurrer is partially overruled and partially sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

MICHAEL TUPAC VS RECOVHUB INC., ET AL.

The Court notes that the $17,018.20 in damages includes $8,000 of statutory damages that Plaintiff is requesting pursuant to Civil Code section 1788 (the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or the “Rosenthal Act”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHAREST V. FAY SERVICING, LLC

., for judgment on the pleadings as to the complaint (ROA 66) is GRANTED without leave as to the seventh cause of action for alleged violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The bank is not a “debt collector” here under the Rosenthal Act and did not engage in any “debt collection”; i.e., the foreclosure was begun by defendant Fay Servicing, LLC, after the loan servicing was transferred. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

STRICKLAND, ET AL. V. LIL’ WAVE FIN., INC., ET AL.

Defendants’ demurrer to the eighth cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants engaged in any harassing, abusive, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable conduct in collecting or attempting to collect on Defendants’ loans, but object to the character and enforceability of express terms of the loan agreement regarding the imposition of late fees and the consequences of default.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

WILLIAM DULANY HILL VS NEWREZ LLC DBA SHELLPOINT MORTGAG SERVICING, ET AL.

., CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2004-HYB4, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-HYB4 for (1) violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (2) violation of Civil Code 2924.17, 2924(a)(6), (3) violation of Civil Code §2934a(a)(1)(A)(C), 2941.9, (4) cancellation of instruments, (5) declaratory relief, (6) violations of Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, and (7) violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

CHOU V. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, INC.

., which requires it remain the same interest rate for the whole mortgage year; defendant intentionally and repeatedly misrepresented and inflated the monthly payment amount and total amount in monthly statements mispleading plaintiff to believe plaintiff owed more than what he really did in violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; during the period of June 2016 to January 2017 defendant obstructed plaintiff’s effort to sell short the property by rejecting offers over the appraised value

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. V. ROXIE WILLIAMS

Defendant filed an answer and cross-complaint alleging violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on September 3, 2019. Plaintiff responded to the cross-complaint by filing the current demurrer. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 472, a party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time after a demurrer is filed, but before the opposition to the demurrer is due. Defendant did so here by filing an amended cross-complaint on December 3, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK VS. A. EDWARD EZOR

On September 16, 2019, Defendant filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”) against American Express Bank, FSB (“AmEx FSB”) for: (1) violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (2) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”); (3) breach of written contract; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) unfair business practices.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DORA BASSETT VS. BANK OF AMERICA

The Second Cause of Action is for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Defendant Bank’s demurrer is sustained on three grounds. First, this cause of action is barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. (15 U.S.C. 1692k, subd. (d).) Plaintiff tries to plead around the Court’s previous ruling on this point by alleging that “[t]he harassing calls occurred in all time periods leading up to the filing of the Complaint in this matter.” (SAC, ¶ 37.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

HUNT VS RECORDON

The underlying federal complaint alleged that the initial collections lawsuits violated the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HUNT VS RECORDON

The underlying federal complaint alleged that the initial collections lawsuits violated the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAFE CREDIT UNION ET AL. VS JULIET M. DIAZ AKA JULIET MOLINA DIAZ ET AL.

If SCU did, then SCU violated the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act (1st cause of action) and, in turn, violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (by attempting to collect a deficiency it is not entitled to under the statute)(2nd cause of action). See, FACC ¶64. In other words, there is no 2nd cause of action for violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act unless there is a violation of the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.