Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the 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

1

 Defendants submitted the sworn declaration of Jeffrey Shaffer, Vice President of Legal

Operations for Unifund, which states that Unifund purchased plaintiff’s debt account from the original

creditor. Defendants provided evidence of a credit card agreement, a bill of sale and assignment of the

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON E. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, a corporation;

STEVEN A. BOOSKA, an individual; and

DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-1767 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On January 18, 2007, the Court heard argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary

judgment. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court DENIES

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS defendants’ motion for the reasons set forth

below. 

The facts as presented in the parties’ papers are not substantially in dispute. Plaintiff made a

partial payment on his credit card debt in October 2002. Although the law in California regarding credit

card accounts is somewhat unclear, the Court finds that the partial payment operated to restart the statute

of limitations. See Martindell v. Bodrero, 63 Cal. Rptr. 774, 776 (Ct. App. 1967) (“As a general rule,

part payment of a debt or obligation is sufficient to extend the bar of the statute. The theory on which

this is based is that the payment is an acknowledgment of the existence of the indebtedness.”); see also

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 337; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 360. Therefore, defendants’ May 31, 2006 state

court collection action was not time-barred as a matter of law. The Court further finds that based upon

the evidence presented, defendants had a sufficient basis to succeed in the state court collection action.1

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 85 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the 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

debt account from the original creditor to defendants, and documentation of the amount of debt.

Plaintiff did not dispute defendants’ evidence or declarations, nor did he provide any evidence to the

contrary. Although plaintiff objects that defendants did not produce the purchase and sale agreement

during discovery, the Court does not rely on the purchase and sale agreement in this decision.

Consequently, the Court need not reach plaintiff’s discovery objection. 

2

The Court finally finds, however, that the questions of law involved are sufficiently close that it cannot

be said that plaintiff brought instant action in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Docket

No. 50] and GRANTS defendants' motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 69].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 85 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 2