California Appeals Court Overturns Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Win in RFDCPA Case

A California Appeals Court has overturned a ruling in favor of a debt collector that was sued for violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not properly serving the plaintiff with a summons and complaint in an underlying collection lawsuit, with the panel ruling that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees of nearly $80,000.

A copy of the ruling in the case of Young v. Midland Funding can be accessed by clicking here.

Background: The plaintiff learned in 2019 that the defendant had obtained a default judgment against her in 2010. The plaintiff claims never to have been served with a summons or complaint. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated the RFDCPA. The defendant filed what is known as an anti-SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) motion, which is intended to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits. A state court judge ruled in favor of the defendant, determining that the plaintiff did not establish a probability of prevailing on the merits of her case. The judge ordered the plaintiff to cover the defendant’s attorney’s fees, after which the plaintiff appealed the ruling.

The Appeal: In overturning the original ruling, the Appeals Court determined that the plaintiff had shown she would likely prevail, and that the lower court’s ruling was based on technicalities — the plaintiff did not proffer evidence that she was a consumer, that the defendant was a debt collector, and that the underlying debt was a consumer debt. The plaintiff provided enough evidence to show that service of the summons was not effected.

Check Also

Settlement Offer, Tradeline Deletion Mention in Letter Leads to Class Action Against Collector

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.