Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04028/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04028-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NANCY H. FINLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04028-TEH 

ORDER RE: JUNE 8, 2015 HEARING

The parties shall come to the June 8, 2015 hearing prepared to address the following 

questions. 

For Plaintiff

1. On what date did Plaintiff’s debt enter default?

2. None of the cases Plaintiff cites for the proposition that the FDCPA is a strict 

liability offense regard 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2), which imposes liability only if the debt 

collector “knows the consumer is represented by an attorney.” Why does this provision 

not distinguish those cases? 

3. What additional discovery would you take in order to show that Defendants 

actually knew Plaintiff was represented by an attorney? 

4. Is it your position that DRS is a “debt buyer” under the CFDBPA? If not, 

then do you oppose granting summary judgment on this claim for DRS?

5. According to the declaration of Anthony Stile, it appears that AFS purchased 

the debt on January 15, 2010 (not 2014). If this is true, is it still your position that the 

CFDBPA applies to AFS, given the limitation in Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.50(d)? 

6. What precise violations of the CFDBPA does Plaintiff allege against AFS? 

//

//

Case 3:14-cv-04028-TEH Document 56 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. It appears that the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agency Act 

provisions that you raise in your oppositions only apply to consumer credit reporting 

agencies. Is it your position that Defendants are consumer credit reporting agencies? If 

not, why would not amendment of the Complaint on this issue be futile? 

For Defendants

8. Defendants’ motions do not discuss Plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA that 

they failed to provide documents or the identity of the creditor, misrepresented the legal 

status of her debt, and harassed her, although the second of these is discussed to a limited 

extent in their replies. If Defendants are challenging these claims, how have they shown 

that they are entitled to summary judgment on them?

9. It appears that AFS may have acquired Plaintiff’s debt while it was in 

default. If this is true, why is AFS not a “debt collector,” under the definition in 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692a(4) and (6)? See Suellen v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, No. 12–cv–00916 

NC, 2012 WL 2849651, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2012). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/04/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04028-TEH Document 56 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 2