What is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?

Useful Rulings on Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Recent Rulings on Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

GEOFFREY BENNETT, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR CLEAVES M. BENNETT, AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE CLEAVES M. BENNETT LIVING TRUST VS ELIZABETH CHAI-CHANG, ET AL.

The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”) is codified at Civil Code § 1788 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that violations began in early 2012 and are continuing by virtue of Defendants collecting money of loans procured by fraud and/or undue influence. Plaintiff must identify the specific section of the RFDCPA to establish that there are actually ongoing violations[2] which are actionable within the limitations period.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MANUEL BOROBIA VS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., (A "LENDER"), ET AL.

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff in pro per filed a 15 cause of action complaint for breach of real estate agreement/contract and impaired covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud in factum, usury and misrepresentation, theft and embezzlement of promissory note deposit money, theft of real property, violation of GAAP and GAAS, violation of notice law, violation of disclosure law, violation of fair debt collection practices act, violation of administrative procedures act, violation of truth in lending act (regulation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

JOCELYN FRYE, ET AL. VS ROBHANA GROUP INC

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES — ELVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Defendants argue that no cause of action can exist under California’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on the grounds that they are not debt collectors. (Demurrer at pp. 9–10.) The Act provides the following definitions pertinent to this issue: (b) The term “debt collection” means any act or practice in connection with the collection of consumer debts.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MANUEL BOROBIA VS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., (A "LENDER"), ET AL.

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff in pro per filed a 15 cause of action complaint for breach of real estate agreement/contract and impaired covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud in factum, usury and misrepresentation, theft and embezzlement of promissory note deposit money, theft of real property, violation of GAAP and GAAS, violation of notice law, violation of disclosure law, violation of fair debt collection practices act, violation of administrative procedures act, violation of truth in lending act (regulation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

PRUNEDA V. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.

First Cause of Action: Violation of the Rosenthal Act The purpose of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA” or “Rosenthal Act”) (Civ. Code § 1788, et seq.) is “to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring such debts ….” (Civ. Code § 1788.1, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS. MEYGHAN HILL, ET AL.

Hill filed a second amended cross-complaint (“SAXC”) against VS, Michael Flanagan (“Flanagan”), and Debt Enforcement Law Group (“DELG”) on June 6, 2017 for: (1) Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and (2) California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”). On March 23, 2018, Hill voluntarily dismissed her cross-complaint with prejudice. B. Relevant Procedural Background On February 13, 2018, the default of Scott was entered.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS JASON WHITTON

Whitton brings claims for (1) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (2) unfair business practices; and (3) declaratory relief against Cross-Defendants. Demurrer to Cross-Complaint Insofar as Whitton’s opposition does not address the second and third causes of action, the Court sustains the Demurrer to the those causes of action without leave to amend. The first cause of action for violation of the FDCPA is brought only against Flanagan. (Cross-Compl., p. 5:6-8.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREGORY RANDOLPH VS CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: Filed on October 20, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None REPLY: Filed on October 26, 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

  • Hearing

SAINT ANDREWS EQUITIES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC VS CURRY PARKWAY L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Code §17200, unlawful foreclosure, and declaratory relief, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation, Rosenthal Act violation, FTC Act violation, and quiet title. Plaintiff alleges that it purchased the property at 13629 S. Saint Andrews Place, Gardena on June 12, 2019. Complaint, ¶9. It was funded via a note secured by a deed of trust. Id., ¶10. Plaintiff entered into a note and deed of trust with non-party Carolyn C. Ausweger Trust dated October 8, 2008 to fund the purchase of the property. Id., ¶11.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

DOLORES SOLORIO TRUST OF 1999 V. ESTRADA

Explanation: The two causes of action subject to this motion are: (1) violation of the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq.); and (2) violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200. The SLAPP analysis is the same for each cause of action, since they are based on the same underlying facts.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

JASON ALAN VS. AUSTIN CAPITAL BANK SSB

The Complaint adequately alleges violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

  • Hearing

VALDEZ VS PACIFIC EMERGENCY PROVIDERS

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Pacific Emergency Providers' ("PEP") unopposed demurrer to the first cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the second cause of action for violation of California Workers' Compensation Act are sustained, without leave to amend. Judicial notice is granted as requested. Plaintiff Christine Valdez's complaint fails to allege facts that defendant PEP is a debt collector under the Rosenthal Act.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BRENDEM PLONG, ET AL. VS RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICE LLC., ET AL.

And “[t]o the extent that the Rosenthal Act would subject nonjudicial foreclosures to [federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act] prohibitions beyond those listed in § 1692f(6), it would violate the FDCPA’s statutory scheme and be preempted under federal law.” (Oya v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D. Cal. 2019) 2019 WL 4573704, *8. Because foreclosure is not debt collection, Plaintiffs’ claim fails.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANDOVAL VS CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC

Violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – Against CMS Violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – Against CMS CMS's demurrer is overruled.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SANDOVAL VS CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC

Violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – Against CMS Violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – Against CMS CMS's demurrer is overruled.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MANUEL BOROBIA VS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., (A "LENDER"), ET AL.

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff in pro per filed a 15 cause of action complaint for breach of real estate agreement/contract and impaired covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud in factum, usury and misrepresentation, theft and embezzlement of promissory note deposit money, theft of real property, violation of GAAP and GAAS, violation of notice law, violation of disclosure law, violation of fair debt collection practices act, violation of administrative procedures act, violation of truth in lending act (regulation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

LCR ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC VS RENES RECINTO

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).) “The term ‘consumer debt’ includes a mortgage debt.” (Civ. Code, § 1788.2(c).) Civil Code § 1788.58 requires debt buyers to allege certain factual elements. The Complaint does not comply with the statute. In opposition, ACR mischaracterizes Recinto’s argument as a statute of limitations defense.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAMI NOMIR VS BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

On January 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint on for Declaratory Relief, Cancellation of Instruments, Quiet Title, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Money Had and Received. On October 7, 2019, the court overruled the demurrer of Bank of America. RULING: Granted. Defendant, Greater LA Escrow, Inc. moves to deem Request for Admissions (set one) admitted. Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories on July 16, 2019. No responses have been received.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JASON ALAN VS. AUSTIN CAPITAL BANK SSB

The Complaint adequately alleges violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

  • Hearing

CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC., ASSIGNEE OF SYNCHRONY BANK ET AL. VS RICHARD BEARE ET AL.

The Cross-Complaint seeks actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys fees, and costs brought by an individual consumer for Credit Corp’s violations of: 1) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p (“FDCPA”) for unlawful acts and abusive practices with an attempt to collect a debt; and 2) the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code 1788-1788.33 (“RFDCPA”) for abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

BRENDEM PLONG, ET AL. VS RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICE LLC., ET AL.

And “[t]o the extent that the Rosenthal Act would subject nonjudicial foreclosures to [federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act] prohibitions beyond those listed in § 1692f(6), it would violate the FDCPA’s statutory scheme and be preempted under federal law.” (Oya v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D.. Cal. 2019) 2019 WL 4573704, *8. Because foreclosure is not debt collection, the Plongs’ claim fails.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MANUEL BOROBIA VS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., (A "LENDER"), ET AL.

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff in pro per filed a 15 cause of action complaint for breach of real estate agreement/contract and impaired covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud in factum, usury and misrepresentation, theft and embezzlement of promissory note deposit money, theft of real property, violation of GAAP and GAAS, violation of notice law, violation of disclosure law, violation of fair debt collection practices act, violation of administrative procedures act, violation of truth in lending act (regulation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

FARRAH PIRAHANCHI VS. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA

Under California law [the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civil Code §1788, et seq.)], a lender is required to give "Notice of Intention to Dispose of Motor Vehicle" after a motor vehicle has been repossessed. Civ.C. §2983.2. The evidence indicates that plaintiff was given such notice on May 7, 2018, after the vehicle was repossessed that same day.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FARRAH PIRAHANCHI VS. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA

Under California law [the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civil Code §1788, et seq.)], a lender is required to give "Notice of Intention to Dispose of Motor Vehicle" after a motor vehicle has been repossessed. Civ.C. §2983.2. The evidence indicates that plaintiff was given such notice on May 7, 2018, after the vehicle was repossessed that same day.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FARRAH PIRAHANCHI VS. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA

Under California law [the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civil Code §1788, et seq.)], a lender is required to give "Notice of Intention to Dispose of Motor Vehicle" after a motor vehicle has been repossessed. Civ.C. §2983.2. The evidence indicates that plaintiff was given such notice on May 7, 2018, after the vehicle was repossessed that same day.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 19     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.