Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
"The Rosenthal Act(also known as Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) forbids the use of any "false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt" through its incorporation by reference of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). See Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17." (Chao v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC (ND Cal 2011 Lexis 103205.)
“The Rosenthal Act is intended "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.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.1. “In addition to setting forth its own standards governing debt-collection practices, the Rosenthal Act also provides that, with limited exceptions, ‘every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provisions of’ the FDCPA.” Id. § 1788.17.
"Under the Rosenthal Act, a ‘debt collector’ is defined as ‘any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself or herself or others, engages in debt collection.’” Id. § 1788.2(c). “[T]he definition of ‘debt collector’ is broader under the Rosenthal Act than it is under the FDCPA, as the latter excludes creditors collecting on their own debts.” (Reyes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., C-10-01667 JCS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2235, 2011 WL 30759, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2011.) “Thus, a mortgage servicer may be a ‘debt collector’ under the Rosenthal Act even if it is the original lender, whereas, such an entity would be excluded from the definition of debt collector under the federal act.” (Id., citing Herrera v. LCS Fin. Servs. Corp., C09-02843 TEH, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122775, 2009 WL 5062192, at *2 N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2009; Reyes-Aguilar v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86627.)
Under Civ. Code 1788.2(c): "The term "debt collector" means any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself or herself or others, engages in debt collection. The term includes any person who composes and sells, or offers to compose and sell, forms, letters, and other collection media used or intended to be used for debt collection, but does not include an attorney or counselor at law."
“The Rosenthal Act defines ‘consumer debt’ and ‘consumer credit’ as ‘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.’” (Davidson v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 283, 295 citing § 1788.2(f).) “The Rosenthal Act further defines the phrase ‘consumer credit transaction’ as ‘a transaction between a natural person and another person in which property, services or money is acquired on credit by that natural person from such other person primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.’” (Id. citing § 1788.2(e).)
“It is clear that the Rosenthal Act is a civil statute that was enacted for the protection of the public, and in interpreting it, we are mindful of the fact that, to the extent that the statutory language is ambiguous, the statute should be construed broadly in favor of protecting the public.” (Davidson v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 283, 289.) “Given this principle, and the fact that the Rosenthal Act's definitional language is sufficiently broad to include mortgage lenders and/or mortgage servicers within its purview, we conclude that mortgage lenders and mortgage servicers can be "debt collectors" under the Rosenthal Act.” (Id. at 289-290.)
These allegations are sufficient, at the pleading stage, to support that Defendant is a debt collector under the FDCPA. (See Randall v. Ditech Fin., LLC (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 804.) The Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA") is overruled. The Complaint sufficiently alleges Defendant Bayview is a debt collector under the RFDCPA. The definition of a debt collector under the RDCPA has been expanded to include mortgage servicers.
DC RANDALL JR VS. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC
37-2018-00046570-CU-MC-CTL
Feb 14, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Discussion Entitlement to Attorneys Fees Defendant LVNV moves for attorneys fees and costs as the prevailing party in this action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA), and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) . A prevailing party is defined to include a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)
ERICA CHAPPELL VS CAPITAL ONE, N.A., ET AL.
23STLC00031
Oct 11, 2023
Echo Dawn Ryan
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants were engaged in the business of collecting debt by use of mail, telephone and other means, and therefore, were debt collectors under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). ( Id . at ¶5.) Defendants are vicariously liable for each others conduct and acting as the others agent. ( Id . at ¶¶6-8.) Plaintiff and Defendant Capital One entered into a settlement agreement in May 2022 concerning a consumer debt. ( Id . at ¶9.)
23STLC00031
Apr 27, 2023
Darren L Vahle
Los Angeles County, CA
cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).
DONNIE MULDROW VS LADERA CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL
BC720986
Sep 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The FAXC seeks actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys fees, and costs brought by an individual consumer for CCS’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.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC., ASSIGNEE OF SYNCHRONY BANK ET AL. VS RICHARD BEARE ET AL.
STK-CV-UOC-2020-0001106
Dec 09, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
The FAXC seeks actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys fees, and costs brought by an individual consumer for CCS’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.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC., ASSIGNEE OF SYNCHRONY BANK ET AL. VS RICHARD BEARE ET AL.
STK-CV-UOC-2020-0001106
Feb 02, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC., ASSIGNEE OF SYNCHRONY BANK ET AL. VS RICHARD BEARE ET AL.
STK-CV-UOC-2020-0001106
Sep 20, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
Cross-Claimants have filed this cross-complaint against Chase for violations of the Fait Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788-1788.32, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Cross-Claimants allege Chase's filing of the lawsuit constitutes an unfair debt collection activity... as it has filed a lawsuit against all three Cross-Claimants that it knows is time-barred.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA VS CHO
37-2016-00045054-CU-OR-CTL
May 16, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
Cynthia Rose brought this action pursuant to the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civil Code § 1788-1788.32 – “RFDCPA”) and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692-1692p – “FDCPA”). Defendant is Aurora Bank, FSB. Plaintiffs allege: In 2005, they allegedly incurred a debt to Community West Bank, N.A. [Complaint ¶ 17] “Plaintiffs allegedly fell behind in the payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt.
HOWARD ROSE ET AL VS AURORA BANK FSB
1385417
Sep 06, 2012
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
Here, the question is whether cross-defendant’s mistake in filing their collection action based on mistaken identity amounts to violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) or the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). FDCPA To prevail on a FDCPA claim a plaintiff must show 1) she was the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt, 2) defendant is a debt collector, and 3) defendant engaged in a prohibited act or omission under FDCPA.
LVNV FUNDING LLC VS ROMERO RODRIGUEZ, YOLANDA
23CECG01294
Aug 01, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Demurrer to SCA: Sustain, without leave to amend, Defendant MUFG's general demurrer to the second cause of action for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, on the ground that Plaintiff does not oppose the demurrer to this claim nor request leave to amend.
KLAUSLER VS MUFG UNION BANK
56-2015-00466874-CL-MC-VTA
Dec 28, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Defendant filed the collections action in Chatsworth, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 16921(a)(2). ( Id . at ¶13.) The collections action is reasonably calculated and likely to result in Plaintiff being confused, harassed and anxious, and violates multiple provisions of the FDCPA and the RFDCPA. ( Id . at ¶¶14-16.)
23STLC00031
Mar 29, 2023
Darren L Vahle
Los Angeles County, CA
Cynthia Rose brought this action pursuant to the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civil Code § 1788-1788.32 – “RFDCPA”) and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692-1692p – “FDCPA”). Defendant is Aurora Bank, FSB. Plaintiffs allege: In 2005, they allegedly incurred a debt to Community West Bank, N.A. [Complaint ¶ 17] “Plaintiffs allegedly fell behind in the payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt.
HOWARD ROSE ET AL VS AURORA BANK FSB
1385417
Nov 29, 2012
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
PADILLA V DEUTSCHE BANK
PC-20190207
Jun 15, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
Brown filed a cross-complaint against PCC, Todd Allen Shields, Clark Garen, and Wireless Receivables Acquisition Group, LLC, for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). On May 13, 2015, the court granted PCC’s and all cross-defendants’ motions for summary judgment. On July 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting summary judgment.
PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION CONSULTANTS VS SCOTT BROWN
1403098
Sep 23, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
The first cause of action alleges a violation of Civil Code section 1788.17, within the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act . Section 1788.17 requires compliance with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 5 U.S.C. 1692, et seq.
MORRIS VS COLLECTION CONSULTANTS OF CALIFORNIA
37-2016-00014968-CL-MC-CTL
May 24, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
The Complaint pleads causes of action for (1) conversion (against Quality); (2) violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) (against Quality); (3) tortious interference with contract (against Exchange Stabilization Fund); (4) conversion (against Rocky McDonald); (5) violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) (against Rocky McDonald); (6) conversion (against Kevin R.
HOYT VS. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
MSC16-02367
Apr 05, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
The court finds that a bank or loan servicer is not excluded as a matter of law under the statutory definition of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and while ordinarily the RFDCPA does not encompass the mortgage foreclosure process, the complaint alleges extraneous fees and costs and an attempt to collect monies beyond those agreed to by the parties within the statute of limitations.
PERKINS, BETH R ET AL VS SANTANDER BANK
17CV01604
Mar 23, 2018
Butte County, CA
The Nunns counter they have made sufficient and detailed allegations at to the Goldsmith Cross-Defendants alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Private Student Lon Collections Reform Act. B. Legal Standard “A demurrer can only be used to challenge the defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.” (Weil &Brown Civil Pro.
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 26, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Nunns counter they have made sufficient and detailed allegations at to the Goldsmith Cross-Defendants alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Private Student Lon Collections Reform Act. B. Legal Standard “A demurrer can only be used to challenge the defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.” (Weil &Brown Civil Pro.
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 23, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Nunns counter they have made sufficient and detailed allegations at to the Goldsmith Cross-Defendants alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Private Student Lon Collections Reform Act. B. Legal Standard “A demurrer can only be used to challenge the defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.” (Weil &Brown Civil Pro.
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 21, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Nunns counter they have made sufficient and detailed allegations at to the Goldsmith Cross-Defendants alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Private Student Lon Collections Reform Act. B. Legal Standard “A demurrer can only be used to challenge the defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.” (Weil &Brown Civil Pro.
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 22, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Nunns counter they have made sufficient and detailed allegations at to the Goldsmith Cross-Defendants alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Private Student Lon Collections Reform Act. B. Legal Standard “A demurrer can only be used to challenge the defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.” (Weil &Brown Civil Pro.
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 24, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Nunns counter they have made sufficient and detailed allegations at to the Goldsmith Cross-Defendants alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Private Student Lon Collections Reform Act. B. Legal Standard “A demurrer can only be used to challenge the defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.” (Weil &Brown Civil Pro.
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 25, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
The Nunns counter they have made sufficient and detailed allegations at to the Goldsmith Cross-Defendants alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Private Student Lon Collections Reform Act. B. Legal Standard “A demurrer can only be used to challenge the defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.” (Weil &Brown Civil Pro.
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS BRENT NUNN, ET AL
22CV02376
Apr 27, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
On May 23, 2014, KBR's MSA was granted as to Plaintiff's cause of action under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code ("CC") sections 1788, et seq. ("RFDCPA") (preempted by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ["FDCPA"]) and denied as to Plaintiff's cause of action under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, CC sections 1785.1, et seq. ("CCRAA").
LEE VS EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC
RG12660482
May 21, 2015
Alameda County, CA
(CW), Advanta Bank, and CardWorks Servicing, LLC (CWS) for (1) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), (2) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), (3) malicious prosecution, and (4) abuse of process. The allegations of the FAC are as follows. Defendants intentionally pursued a meritless lawsuit (underlying action) against Plaintiff relating to the collection of a debt associated with a credit card.
TOM C. BENTON VS COLLECT ACCESS, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV46728
Oct 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Civil Code section 1812.700, subdivision (a) provides that “third-party debt collectors subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” shall provide a notice summarizing debtors’ rights under the FDCPA and RFDCPA with the first written notice to the debtor.
LORIE ANN GUZMAN V. MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, ET AL.
18-CV-322871
Apr 05, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
The fourth cause of action is for violations of Civil Code § 1788, et seq.: Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"). While under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), which the fourth cause of action alleges was violated, a mortgage servicer is not a debt collector, a mortgage servicer may be a debt collector under the California analog – RFDCPA. (Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1029, 1038; Davidson v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 283, 290.)
WILSON VS BANK OF AMERICA
37-2018-00057218-CU-OR-CTL
Aug 15, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
It asserts two causes of action, one under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and one under the state Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).
PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION CONSULTANTS VS SCOTT BROWN
1403098
Mar 14, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal FDCPA) (Civil Code §1788 et seq.) is the statutory equivalent of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The purpose it “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.” (Civil Code §1788.1(b).)
HOWARD VS U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE OF BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-E
CVRI2202682
Jul 26, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Case Number: BC720986 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: 52 Tentative Ruling: Order to Show Cause Regarding Striking Eighth Cause of Action Against Ladera Crest Homeowners Association The courts order to show cause issued on July 29, 2022, posed the following question: Is Ladera HOA exempt from the federal FDCPA [Fair Debt Collection Practices Act] because it collected its own debts? (Order, p. 10.)
DONNIE MULDROW VS LADERA CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL
BC720986
Aug 24, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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
PADILLA V DEUTSCHE BANK
PC-20190207
Feb 07, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated section 1788.17 of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”) by violating 15 U.S.C. section 1692f, subdivision (1). (Compl., § III, ¶¶6, 11, 12.)
LEIGH-ANN ORSI VS I.C. SYSTEMS, INC.
21STLC03711
Jul 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“State FDCPA”; Civ. C. §§ 1788-1788.32) is California's counterpart to the federal FDCPA. The two laws are similar, but not identical. The State FDCPA governs collection of “consumer debts” by “debt collectors.” Civ. C. § 1788.2(c), (f). The State FDCPA defines a “consumer debt” (or “consumer credit”) as “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.” Civ.
LVNV FUNDING LLC V. KWAK
30-2018-01026456-CU-CL-CJC
Apr 08, 2019
Orange County, CA
Debt Collection Practices Act Incorporates and reiterates prior allegations.
PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION CONSULTANTS VS SCOTT BROWN
1403098
Dec 13, 2012
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
A claim under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code §1788, may only be brought against "debt collectors" and involving a "debt" as defined by that statute. Persuasive decisions by California U.S. District Courts have held that "(f)oreclosure does not constitute debt collection under the RFDCPA." (See e.g. Izenberg v. ETS Services LLC 589 F.Supp.2d 1193, 1199 (C.D. Cal., 2008) and Civil Code §2424(b).)
CAROL ANN CRNIC VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
56-2011-00402904-CU-OR-SIM
Nov 08, 2011
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
Ocwen contends that plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to constitute causes of action under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) and Business and Professions Code § 17200 (UCL). Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. In short, plaintiff alleges that he owned a residential property in Ventura County. (FAC, ¶ 7.) He refinanced the property in 2006. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Implicit is that the new loan was secured by a deed of trust. (See FAC, fn. 1.)
LOUIS FEINSTEIN VS. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC
56-2011-00407651-CU-AT-VTA
Jul 30, 2012
Ventura County, CA
This is a putative class action alleging violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). Before the Court is a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction by individual defendants David Edward Cairnduff and James Matthew Hresko. Also at issue is a pro hac vice application by defendants’ counsel Charity A. Olson, which plaintiff opposes. I. Allegations of the Operative Complaint Defendant Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc.
PAMELA SHEREÉ CHAMBERS V. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION, INC., ET
18-CV-324210
Jul 27, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civ. Code § 1788 In Opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not allege that they are a “debt collector” for purposes of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This is incorrect: Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendants are a “debt collector” as the term is defined under Civil Code § 1788.2(c). Complaint at ¶ 79.
SHINER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SER
MSC19-00607
Jun 05, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
Defendant next demurs to plaintiff’s seventh cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”) (Civil Code §1788 et seq.). The RFDCPA was enacted “to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring such debts.” Civil Code §1788.1.
DARREL DUNSCOMB VS RECONTRUST COMPANY NA ET AL
1343524
Nov 15, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( RFDCPA) Section 1788.17 of the RFDCPA mandates that every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(b)-(j) and shall be subject to the remedies dictated by 15 U.S.C. §1692k and §1692d(5). In turn, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is codified in 15 U.S.C. §1692.
JEROME KERN VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.
22PSCV02903
Dec 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Gonzalez filed the initial cross-complaint (“Cross-Complaint”) on June 10, 2019, alleging that CCS engaged in unlawful acts and abusive practices in connection with its attempt to collect the debt in violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”) and its state counterpart, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”). On January 13, 2020, CCS filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Cross-Complaint and the two claims asserted therein.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC, VS. LILIANA GONZALEZ
19CV345863
Jul 23, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Background Plaintiffs allege Defendant is a law firm and attorney who qualifies as a debt collector under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code §1788, et seq. (RFDCPA), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. (FDCPA), on behalf of itself as well as on behalf of third party original creditors, under RFDPCA §1788.2(c) and FDCPA §1692a(6). (Complaint ¶5.)
SHARI GIULIANY, ET AL. VS FRANK H WHITEHEAD, III, ET AL.
22STCV28709
Jul 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to (1) negligence- to allege facts giving rise to duty of care; (2) violation of fair debt collection practices act- to allege facts showing that Defendants are "debt collectors" within the meaning of FDCPA; (3) slander of title- to allege "direct and immediate pecuniary loss;" (4) violation of 2344 - to allege all elements of this cause of action, statutory or common law; (5) declaratory relief- to allege non-duplicative actual controversy. = (501/REQ)
ANDREA STEINER VS. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC ET AL
CGC13527954
Aug 26, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
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.
VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS. MEYGHAN HILL, ET AL.
EC066501
May 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Whitehead III (Law Office) (collectively, Defendants), alleging two causes of action: (1) Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692, et seq. (FDCPA); and (2) Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code §§1788 et seq. (RFDCPA). On July 11, 2023, this Court granted Defendants special motion in the alternative to strike (Anti-SLAPP Motion) the 2nd cause of action in Plaintiffs Complaint. (7/11/23 Minute Order.)
SHARI GIULIANY, ET AL. VS FRANK H WHITEHEAD, III, ET AL.
22STCV28709
Feb 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Polakovic has pled sufficient facts to allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act. The allegations are not clearly barred by the statute of limitations on the face of the Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendant's other arguments involve questions of fact, that are not subject to demurrer. Cross-Defendant's request for judicial notice is denied. Cross-Defendant did not cite to any California legal authority in support of its request.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-3 VS. ALEXANDRA POLAKOVIC ET AL
CGC13532227
Feb 25, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Polakovic has pled sufficient facts to allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act. The allegations are not clearly barred by the statute of limitations on the face of the Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendant's other arguments involve questions of fact, that are not subject to demurrer. Cross-Defendant's request for judicial notice is denied. Cross-Defendant did not cite to any California legal authority in support of its request.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, VS. ALEXANDRA POLAKOVIC ET AL
CGC13532231
Feb 25, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Polakovic has pled sufficient facts to allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act. The allegations are not clearly barred by the statute of limitations on the face of the Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendant's other arguments involve questions of fact, that are not subject to demurrer. Cross-Defendant's request for judicial notice is denied. Cross-Defendant did not cite to any California legal authority in support of its request.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-4, VS. ALEXANDRA POLAKOVIC ET AL
CGC13532228
Feb 25, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Defendant failed to adequately allege in the answer that defendant is a “debt collector” within the meaning of the Federal FDCPA and, in fact, has admitted sufficient facts in the answer to establish plaintiff is not a “debt collector”. Therefore, under the state of the pleadings before the court, defendant admits in her answer that the plaintiff can not be held liable for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
LVNV FUNDING, LLC V. BARTOLOME
PCL-20190200
Jun 28, 2019
El Dorado County, CA
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.)
VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS JASON WHITTON
19CHLC28878
Nov 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Promisory Note
The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal FDCPA) (Civil Code §1788 et seq.) is the statutory equivalent of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The purpose it “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.” (Civil Code §1788.1(b).)
KING VS 2ND CHANCE MORTGAGES, INC.
CVRI2101523
Aug 09, 2021
Riverside County, CA
The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal FDCPA) (Civil Code §1788 et seq.) is the statutory equivalent of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The purpose it “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.” (Civil Code §1788.1(b).)
KING VS 2ND CHANCE MORTGAGES, INC.
CVRI2101523
Aug 07, 2021
Riverside County, CA
The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal FDCPA) (Civil Code §1788 et seq.) is the statutory equivalent of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The purpose it “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.” (Civil Code §1788.1(b).)
KING VS 2ND CHANCE MORTGAGES, INC.
CVRI2101523
Aug 08, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Ramirez now demurs to the complaint on the grounds that the three-day notice attached as an exhibit to the complaint was signed by an attorney and constitutes a violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). Because the three-day notice demands payment of back rent and violates the FDCPA, Ramirez argues that the notice is invalid. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the demurrer.
SANTA BARBARA COMMUNITY HOUSING CORP VS OLGA RAMIREZ
1415371
Mar 07, 2013
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (2) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (3) conversion. Moving Defendant filed a demurrer to the first through third causes of action in the FAC[1]. JUDICIAL NOTICE The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice number 1 and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice number 2.
MILISSA WATKINS VS TOP FINANCE COMPANY, INC., ET AL.
20STCV01935
Sep 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Defendant Sambrano filed a cross-complaint alleging that the allegations in CCS's complaint and attached exhibit violate provisions of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 USC 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), Civil Code section 1788 et seq., that prohibit misrepresentations and misleading statements regarding the amount and nature of the debt to the consumer.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC. VS SAMBRANO
RG20056652
Apr 13, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Sambrano's cross-complaint alleges the allegations in the complaint and attached exhibit violate provisions of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 USC 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), Civil Code section 1788 et seq., that prohibit misrepresentations and misleading statements regarding the amount and nature of the debt to the consumer.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC. VS SAMBRANO
RG20056652
Jan 19, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Discussion Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Defendant contends that the complaint fails to state a violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Rosenthal Act). The Rosenthal Act is modeled on, and applies more broadly than, the federal FDCPA. ( Paredes v. Credit Consulting Services, Inc. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 410, 425.)
JOSHUA GREER VS HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD.
23STCV16563
Jan 29, 2024
Echo Dawn Ryan
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff contends the letter supports his eighth cause of action for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and ninth cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal FDCPA. Both causes of action have a statute of limitations of one year. (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d); Civ. Code, § 1788.30(f).) Plaintiff filed this action on September 6, 2018, more than one year after the pre-lien notice was allegedly sent in 2016.
DONNIE MULDROW VS LADERA CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL
BC720986
Jul 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Seventh Cause of Action for Quiet Title, and Eighth Cause of Action for Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Plaintiffs Christopher and Marissa Dhillon concede that the second cause of action under the FDCPA, the seventh cause of action for quiet title, and the eighth cause of action under RESPA should be “dismissed” as to Defendant
CHRISTOPHER R. DHILLON, ET AL VS. NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION, ET AL
22-CIV-03345
Jan 29, 2023
San Mateo County, CA
Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C.
LORIE ANN GUZMAN V. MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, ET AL.
18CV322871
Jun 26, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Defendant argues Plaintiff fails to specify if his unfair debt collection acts cause of action is under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. or the California equivalent, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”), Civil Code § 1788 et seq., as well as the statute or section Defendant allegedly violated.
LEE, JACOB S VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
16K05936
Oct 27, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Tentative Ruling Re: Demurrer of Defendants GMAC Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank National Trust to the Faerman Plaintiffs' Complaint 1.Sustain, without leave to amend, as to the 1st cause of action for violation of the CA Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"). The collection of a home mortgage debt does not fall under the RFDCPA. California courts have declined to regard a residential mortgage loan as a 'debt' under the RFDCPA.
GUSTAVO M R FAERMAN VS. GMAC MORTGAGE LLC
56-2011-00393187-CU-OR-SIM
Jun 01, 2011
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
On August 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint for Violation of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, Wrongful Foreclosure, Negligence, Slander of Title, Fraud, Accounting Validation of Alleged Debt, Unfair Competition in Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), RESPA Violations, Cancellation of Instrument Due to Fraud in Factum, Constructive Fraud, Injunctive Relief, Cancellation of Instrument Void, and Quiet Title
SHAKEB ZUBERI, ET AL. VS KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
21CHCV00614
May 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Gonzalez filed the initial cross-complaint (“Cross-Complaint”) on June 10, 2019, alleging that CCS engaged in unlawful acts and abusive practices in connection with its attempt to collect the debt in violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”) and its state counterpart, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “RDCPA”). She filed the FACC on March 10, 2020.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC, VS. LILIANA GONZALEZ
19CV345863
Feb 04, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Plaintiff sued defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). (15 U.S.C.A. § 1692 et seq.) The elements for a FDCPA action are: “(1) the plaintiff is a consumer, as defined by the FDCPA; (2) the debt arises out of a transaction primarily for personal, family or household purposes; (3) the defendant is a debt collector, as that phrase is defined by the FDCPA; and (4) the defendant violated a provision of the Act. (15 U.S.C. § 1692e; Heintz v.
CHAVEZ VS. LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP + STATUS CONFERENCE
30-2017-00907937
Jun 27, 2018
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff sued defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). (15 U.S.C.A. § 1692 et seq.) The elements for a FDCPA action are: “(1) the plaintiff is a consumer, as defined by the FDCPA; (2) the debt arises out of a transaction primarily for personal, family or household purposes; (3) the defendant is a debt collector, as that phrase is defined by the FDCPA; and (4) the defendant violated a provision of the Act. (15 U.S.C. § 1692e; Heintz v.
CHAVEZ VS. LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP + STATUS CONFERENCE
30-2017-00907937-CU-MC-CXC
Jun 27, 2018
Orange County, CA
This case involves a Complaint alleging Violations of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Negligence and Violations of Business & Professions Code 17200. As to Plaintiff's Claim of False Credit Reporting, and of the Second Cause of Action for Negligence, plaintiff indicates she is withdrawing these claims. The Court thus GRANTS summary adjudication of claims for false credit reporting and the Second Cause of Action for Negligence.
AUGE VS VAK M100 FUND LLC
37-2015-00039745-CU-JR-CTL
Jan 10, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Other
Enforcement
It includes, among other things, a general denial of the allegations in the complaint, more than three pages of affirmative defenses, legal argument about the requirements under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereafter FDCPA), and excerpts from one or more publications and arguments about the creation of money and the banking system. On August 22, 2018, more than three months after filing her Answer, Defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss Complaint.”
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA V. GALE M. WAGGONER
CVL61427
Jan 25, 2019
Tuolumne County, CA
It includes, among other things, a general denial of the allegations in the complaint, more than three pages of affirmative defenses, legal argument about the requirements under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereafter FDCPA), and excerpts from one or more publications and arguments about the creation of money and the banking system. On August 22, 2018, more than three months after filing her Answer, Defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss Complaint.”
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA V. GALE M. WAGGONER
CVL61428
Jan 25, 2019
Tuolumne County, CA
(“Defendant”) for alleged violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). The basis for the action is Defendant’s practice of sending written communication in an envelope with a window that provided access to Plaintiff’s personal information. The litigation was settled, and on October 12, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement.
ROSA MORENO-PERALTA V. TRS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.
15CV-0481
Jul 19, 2018
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Defendants’ general demurrer on the grounds that the 3-day notice violates the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is overruled, for the same reasons above, on the grounds of defective notice.
O’BRIEN VS. ALBRECHT
CV13-00168
Mar 23, 2015
Plumas County, CA
If Plaintiff prevails on her forgery claim, other causes of action could provide appropriate relief, thus making declaratory relief unnecessary. 8th cause of action, for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act BONY and by loan servicer PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION (“PHH”) both demurred to the eighth cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”)
FCS057930
Nov 17, 2022
Solano County, CA
Doherty contends that the anti-SLAPP statute and the Consumer Statutes conflict, and Midland’s right to anti-SLAPP attorney fees must yield to Doherty’s claims under the California’s Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code §§ 1788.50-1788.64 (“Debt Buyer Act”), the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (“FDCPA”), and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VS. RACHEL DOHERTY
20CECG02758
Dec 01, 2021
Fresno County, CA
The First Cause of Action for Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). The purpose of the RFDCPA 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." (Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.1(b).)
GARY COBLE VS. WELLS FARGO BANK NA
34-2012-00128426-CU-BT-GDS
Oct 23, 2012
Sacramento County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK VS. A. EDWARD EZOR
EC067063
Dec 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 12, 2020, the Stephenses filed a Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages, and later a First Amended Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages (“FACC”), asserting causes of action for (1) violation of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code §§ 1788.50-1788.64 (“CFDBPA”), (2) the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692- 1692p (“FDCPA”) and (3) the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code § 1788- 1788.33 (“RFDCPA”
PIEDMONT CAPITAL VS TERRY STEPHENS
MSC20-01919
Dec 29, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
BEACH SWINGS, LLC VS VAULT MEDIA GROUP LLC, ET AL.
20TRCV00126
Jun 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff suggests that Defendant can be held liable for violating Title 15, section 1692g(b), of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Complaint, Second Cause of Action, ¶¶ 1-2; Opposition, ¶¶ 2-4, 6.) However, “the debt-collector-related prohibitions of the FDCPA … do not apply to those who … are engaged in no more than security- interest enforcement.” (Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP (2019) ____ U.S. ____ [139 S.Ct. 1029, 1037].)
EDWARD RANDOLPH DAYTON V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ET AL.
FCS052246
Sep 16, 2019
Solano County, CA
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”).
VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS. MEYGHAN HILL, ET AL.
EC066501
Feb 23, 2018
Donna Fields Goldstein or Benny C. Osorio
Los Angeles County, CA
Inasmuch as claims are based on the argument that CitiMortgage was acting as a debt collector, those claims are barred by collateral estoppel due to the dismissal with prejudice of claims in federal court based on the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Truth in Lending Act.
FLANAGAN VS. CITIMORTGAGE INC
37-2018-00021125-CU-BC-CTL
Oct 24, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Inasmuch as claims are based on the argument that CitiMortgage was acting as a debt collector, those claims are barred by collateral estoppel due to the dismissal with prejudice of claims in federal court based on the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Truth in Lending Act.
FLANAGAN VS. CITIMORTGAGE INC
37-2018-00021125-CU-BC-CTL
Oct 10, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
First Cause of Action for Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Defendants demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state states facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action. [T]he FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from making false or misleading representations and from engaging in various abusive and unfair practices.
JOHN SIPES VS. COASTLINE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., ET AL
YC073016
Mar 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND The complaint filed 8/5/10 asserts causes of action under (1) the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act") and (2) the UCL. The statutory basis for the Rosenthal Act claim is Civil Code 1788.17, which incorporates the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The FDCPA includes 15 USC 1692e. "It is well established that "[o]ne cannot, consistent with the FDCPA, mislead the debtor regarding meaningful 'attorney' involvement in the debt collection process." ...
REIMANN VS BRACHFELD
RG10529702
Sep 07, 2021
Alameda County, CA
All factual allegations are assumed to be true. 1st Cause of Action: Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act "The Rosenthal Act forbids the use of any "false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt" through its incorporation by reference of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). See Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17." (Chao v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC (ND Cal 2011 Lexis 103205.) Civ.
MEHDI HAGHIGHI VS. BANK OF AMERICA NA
56-2013-00445215-CU-OR-VTA
Jul 29, 2014
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
The Complaint alleges claims for (1) Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (2) Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (3) Conversion; (4) Unlawful Business Practices; and (5) Negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendant unlawfully accessed a locked garage in order to repossess the subject motor vehicle. On August 6, 2018, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to form interrogatories came for hearing.
CHATMAN, KASEY VS RECOVERY MANAGEMENT
17K07302
Aug 23, 2018
Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
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”). Hill now moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one (“RPD”) no. 1 from Flanagan. The motion is not opposed. DISCUSSION A.
VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS. MEYGHAN HILL, ET AL.
EC066501
Mar 02, 2018
Donna Fields Goldstein or Benny C. Osorio
Los Angeles County, CA
Analysis Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was enacted “to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts.” (Civ. Code, § 1788.1, subd. (b).) The Act defines “debt collector” as “any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of that person or others, engages in debt collection.” (§ 1788.2,(c).)
CHRISTENSEN VS SPECIALIZED LOA
MSC21-00532
Apr 16, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
The Demurrer is overruled because plaintiff brought the Demurrer as to both causes of action: violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for failing to state sufficient facts. (CCP § 430.10(e); see also CCP § 430.60 and CRC 3.1320(a)) Both causes of action allege "overshadowing" and impermissible costs.
RAYMOND CALDERA VS ALLTRAN FINANCIAL LP
37-2017-00042512-CL-MC-CTL
Oct 18, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
The Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action For Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is SUSTAINED with leave to amend, on the basis that the Complaint fails to adequately allege facts showing that Defendants were engaging in debt collection as defined in the Act, and that Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and on the basis that the Complaint fails to allege tender of the entire loan balance due.
NOZISKA VS. BANK OF AMERICA
30-2016-00861468-CU-OR-CJC
Sep 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.
STK-CV-UBC-2019-0009785
Feb 04, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.
STK-CV-UBC-2019-0009785
Feb 18, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
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”). Settlement of the Action On April 17, 2018, the Court held an OSC re Status of Settlement Agreement and OSC re Dismissal.
VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS. MEYGHAN HILL, ET AL.
EC066501
Nov 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Peters & Freedman seek their attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code § 12965) as well as under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (CC § 1788.30). Williams v.
DENISE FEDERICO VS. HERITAGE PARK EAST MAINTENANCE CORPORATION
37-2014-00039826-CU-OR-CTL
Mar 16, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
The First Cause of Action for Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). The purpose of the RFDCPA 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." (Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.1(b).)
GARY COBLE VS. WELLS FARGO BANK NA
34-2012-00128426-CU-BT-GDS
Apr 25, 2013
Sacramento County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims are not viable for towing charges. Plaintiff Fanya Young acknowledges that her fraud claim is deficient. If she can do so in good faith, Ms. Young is given leave to file a second amended complaint alleging any cognizable claims she has against Tegsco including fraud but not including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
FANYA YOUNG VS. YADIRA BASSETT ET AL
CGC17556664
Apr 25, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Plaintiffs generally plead that Defendant, in taking the actions described in the complaint, have violated the provisions of the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Federal Fair Debt Collections Act, 15 United States Code, section 1692 ("FDCPA"). These accusations are conclusory, because there are no operative facts demonstrating which actions were deemed to be in violation of the Acts, or which portions of the Acts were violated.
GERALD J MATHEWS VS. CITIMORTGAGE, INC
56-2009-00361690-CU-OR-SIM
Sep 03, 2010
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
The FAC pleads causes of action for (1) conversion and (2) violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.). Defendants demur pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e) to each cause of action. Request for Judicial Notice Defendant requests Judicial Notice of several County Recorder Documents as well as dockets for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Northern District of California. This Request is unopposed. The Court grants this Request. Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.
HOYT VS. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
MSC16-02367
Jul 12, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.