Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-236
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 03:41:58
Document Index: 117959271

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1692', '§ 1788', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 17200', '§ 452', '§ 2924', '§1692']

"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 Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1788.2(e).)
Whether Mortgage Servicers Can Be “Debt Collectors”
“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.)
Useful Rulings on Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Mehdi Haghighi vs. Bank of America NA
..§ 430.10(e)) tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, and looks only to the factual allegations on the face of the pleading and to any attachments thereto, or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. No other extrinsic evidence can be considered – there are no "speaking demurrers." Ion Equipment Corporation v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal. App.3d 868, 881 (error for court t...
Citibank NA vs Alvin Hunt
Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference; Motion: Anti-SLAPP Special Motion & Anti-SLAPP Special Motion to Strike TENTATIVE RULING: Grant BACKGROUND: This action was filed as a limited civil action, seeking $9,698.20 as a result of a credit card debt. Defendant Hunt answered the complaint on August 21, 2013, admitting all allegations except the entitlement to judgment, and contending th...
.. On October 2, 2013, cross-defendant Hunt & Henriques answered the cross-complaint. On October 9, 2013, cross-defendant Citibank filed an Anti-SLAPP special motion to strike, directed toward the FACC. Defendant Hunt has opposed the motion. FACC: While difficult to decipher, the FACC purports to state “causes of action” against both plaintiff and its attorneys. As against the attorneys, the “cause...
VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS. MEYGHAN HILL, ET AL.
# 12 video symphony, llc, Plaintiff, v. meyghan hill, et al., Defendants. Case No.: EC066501 Hearing Date: February 23, 2018 [Tentative] order RE: defendant/cross-plaintiff meyghan hill’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication BACKGROUND Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC (“VS”) is an assignee of Video Symphony EnterTraining, Inc. (“VSE”), which was a TV, film, and audio vocational...
..“Video Symphony Career Training Program Enrollment Agreement”, and enrolled in VSE’s Film & Video Editing certificate program. (Id., ¶5.) The total student costs and fees for Hill was $30,104. (Id., ¶6.) She also signed on July 9, 2009, a student promissory note with a loan amount of $14,761.50 and a total payment amount of $20,416.12. (Id., ¶¶8-9.) The maturity date of the note was June 7, 2014....
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT FILED BY FAY SERVICING, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Fay Servicing, LLC has brought a general demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action in plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The demurrer is overruled. Defendant Fay’s answer to the original Complaint may be deemed its answer to the First Amended Complaint...
..view. Defendant Fay does not dispute that it is a “debt collector” for purposes of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (See, Davidson v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 283, 296-305.) However, defendant argues that the conduct described in paragraphs 79 and 80 of the Fourth Cause of Action does not constitute “debt collection,” as defined by the Rosenthal Act. The Court finds th...
SHINER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SER
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of SHINER FILED BY SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,, U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, * TENTATIVE RULING: * This is an unlawful foreclosure case. Before the Court is a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) filed by Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“Defendant” or “SPS”) and U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee for the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust...
..n of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. For the following reasons, the Demurrer is sustained, with leave to amend. Request for Judicial Notice Defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice of documents, on both Demurrer and on Reply, is granted. Evid. Code §§ 452, 453. Analysis Violation of Civ. Code § 2924.17 Civil Code 2924.17 requires that prior to recording “a notice of default, notice of sal...
This is an action under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA” or “Rosenthal Act”). Before the Court is defendant Mandarich Law Group, LLP’s motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of plaintiff’s putative class claims. Plaintiff opposes defendant’s motion. I. Allegations of the Operative Complaint Plaintiff incurred a consumer debt in the form of a...
.., in violation of Civil Code section 1812.701, subdivision (b), provided the notice required by Civil Code section 1812.700, subdivision (a) in 10-point type. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-24.) Plaintiff alleges that sending initial collection letters with this formatting is defendant’s standard practice, and consequently brings a putative class action on behalf of other WebBank debtors who received such a lette...
Recent Rulings on Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
San Diego County, CA (68)
Santa Barbara County, CA (43)
McCarthy & Holthus LLP (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1029 (Obduskey) to this case. 15 U.S.C. 1692g, subdivision (b) is part of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”). The parties’ arguments hinge on whether or not Plaintiff has adequately pled that Defendant acted as a “debt collector” collecting on a “debt” within the meaning of the Act.
Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C.
BEACH SWINGS, LLC VS VAULT MEDIA GROUP LLC, ET AL.
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.
SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK OPPOSITION: Filed on June 11, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None REPLY: Filed on June 18, 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 against Defendant
PADILLA V DEUTSCHE BANK
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.
EDWARD RANDOLPH DAYTON V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.
The parties’ arguments hinge on whether or not Plaintiff has adequately pled that Defendant acted as a “debt collector” collecting on a “debt” within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court requests that the parties submit supplemental briefing addressing this question in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1029. Said supplemental briefing shall be filed and contemporaneously served by June 25, 2020.
Civil Code 1788 is commonly referred to as the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act generally forbids unlawful or unfair business practices in the collection of debts. At paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Defendants told her that there was no issue recording a Notice of Trustee’s Sale while her complete loan modification application was pending when the law prohibits such action.
On October 21, 2019, Paredes filed the Cross-Complaint, alleging that CCS violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act” or the “Act”) by engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices, particularly by making false statements or representations in the Complaint. On November 25, 2019, CCS filed the instant special motion to strike the Cross- Complaint in its entirety. Paredes opposes the motion.
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.
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
STRICKLAND V. LIL’ WAVE FIN., INC., ET AL.
Defendants' demurrer to the eighth cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants engaged in any harassing, abusive, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable conduct in collecting or attempting to collect on Defendants' loans, but object to the character and enforceability of express terms of the loan agreement regarding the imposition of late fees and the consequences of default.
MICHAEL TUPAC VS RECOVHUB INC., ET AL.
The Court notes that the $17,018.20 in damages includes $8,000 of statutory damages that Plaintiff is requesting pursuant to Civil Code section 1788 (the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or the “Rosenthal Act”).
CHAREST V. FAY SERVICING, LLC
., for judgment on the pleadings as to the complaint (ROA 66) is GRANTED without leave as to the seventh cause of action for alleged violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The bank is not a “debt collector” here under the Rosenthal Act and did not engage in any “debt collection”; i.e., the foreclosure was begun by defendant Fay Servicing, LLC, after the loan servicing was transferred. 2.
STRICKLAND, ET AL. V. LIL’ WAVE FIN., INC., ET AL.
Defendants’ demurrer to the eighth cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants engaged in any harassing, abusive, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable conduct in collecting or attempting to collect on Defendants’ loans, but object to the character and enforceability of express terms of the loan agreement regarding the imposition of late fees and the consequences of default.
., which requires it remain the same interest rate for the whole mortgage year; defendant intentionally and repeatedly misrepresented and inflated the monthly payment amount and total amount in monthly statements mispleading plaintiff to believe plaintiff owed more than what he really did in violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; during the period of June 2016 to January 2017 defendant obstructed plaintiff’s effort to sell short the property by rejecting offers over the appraised value
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. V. ROXIE WILLIAMS
Defendant filed an answer and cross-complaint alleging violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on September 3, 2019. Plaintiff responded to the cross-complaint by filing the current demurrer. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 472, a party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time after a demurrer is filed, but before the opposition to the demurrer is due. Defendant did so here by filing an amended cross-complaint on December 3, 2019.
AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK VS. A. EDWARD EZOR
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.
DORA BASSETT VS. BANK OF AMERICA
The Second Cause of Action is for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Defendant Bank’s demurrer is sustained on three grounds. First, this cause of action is barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. (15 U.S.C. 1692k, subd. (d).) Plaintiff tries to plead around the Court’s previous ruling on this point by alleging that “[t]he harassing calls occurred in all time periods leading up to the filing of the Complaint in this matter.” (SAC, ¶ 37.)
HUNT VS RECORDON
The underlying federal complaint alleged that the initial collections lawsuits violated the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
SAFE CREDIT UNION ET AL. VS JULIET M. DIAZ AKA JULIET MOLINA DIAZ ET AL.
If SCU did, then SCU violated the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act (1st cause of action) and, in turn, violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (by attempting to collect a deficiency it is not entitled to under the statute)(2nd cause of action). See, FACC ¶64. In other words, there is no 2nd cause of action for violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act unless there is a violation of the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act.