Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00520/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00520-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Starr, husband; and Lorita Starr,

wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

The Hameroff Law Firm, P.C., an Arizona

professional corporation; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-520 TUC FRZ (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed on May 1, 2008, by the

defendants, Unifund CCR Partners, Credit Card Receivables Fund, Inc., and ZB limited

partners. [doc. #67] 

The plaintiffs, Michael and Lorita Starr, were named as defendants in a collection

action filed previously in state court. They brought the instant action against the state court

plaintiff and its attorney claiming the state court complaint violated the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

On January 11, 2008, the court issued an order dismissing the defendant, Hameroff

Law Firm, pursuant to stipulation. In the instant motion, the defendants, Unifund CCR

Partners, Credit Card Receivables Fund, Inc., and ZB limited partners, argue they should also

be dismissed from the action because the stipulated agreement signed by the plaintiffs also

Case 4:06-cv-00520-FRZ-GEE Document 70 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

releases them from liability. They also argue they are no longer liable because their agent

was dismissed from the case and this release “likewise releases the principal.” 

On June 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a “Notice of No Objection” explaining they “have

concluded that the Court could properly conclude that these Defendants were covered by the

dismissal and settlement agreement negotiated by Plaintiff[s] and Defendants Hammeroff

Law Firm and David Hammeroff.” Accordingly, they have no objection to the instant motion

to dismiss.

Recommendation

 The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

GRANTING the motion to dismiss filed on May 1, 2008, by the defendants, Unifund

CCR Partners, Credit Card Receivables Fund, Inc., and ZB limited partners. [doc. #67] 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900

(2003). 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to all parties.

DATED this 27th day of June, 2008.

Case 4:06-cv-00520-FRZ-GEE Document 70 Filed 06/27/08 Page 2 of 2