![bill of particulars california bill of particulars california](https://www.coursehero.com/thumb/92/b7/92b70f2a088f19e61b50dfcdc939a33a5badbc5b_180.jpg)
"Although we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that the misstatements were not material, which was the basis on which the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, “e may affirm on any basis supported by the record.” Fisher v. We agree and conclude that Anaya Law Group’s $3,000 overstatement of the principal due in the state court complaint, exacerbated by the statement of an inflated interest rate, was material." “We conclude, however, that the false statements made by the debt collector in this case were material because they could have disadvantaged the least sophisticated debtor in responding to the complaint. This appeal requires us to consider the materiality of modest overstatements of an amount due and an interest rate.Īs to the “materiality” issue, the court concluded: What makes a false statement material or immaterial in the debt collection world? Material false statements, we have held, are those that could “cause the least sophisticated debtor to suffer a disadvantage in charting a course of action in response to the collection effort.” Tourgeman v. The Court of Appeals succinctly described the issue presented: To constitute a violation of the FDCPA, a false statement must be “material.” However, not all false statements are actionable. § 1692 et seq.), prohibits debt collectors from making false statements when attempting to collect debts from consumers. The district court granted summary judgment to the debt collector on both claims because it concluded that the errors in the complaint were not material. The summary judgment is appropriate when the court determines there no factual issues remaining to be tried, and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. Each of the parties moved for summary judgment.Įditor’s Note: A motion for summary judgment is based upon a claim by one party (or, in some cases, both parties) that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided they need not be tried. The debtor sued the debt collector in federal court for violations of the FDCPA and of the RFDCPA, (Cal. Two days later, on June 18, 2014, Anaya Law Group filed a notice of errata correcting the errors. She asserted that the errors were inadvertent. As she later set out in a declaration, an Anaya Law Group attorney discovered the errors in the complaint for the first time on June 16, 2014, while preparing a response to the demand.
![bill of particulars california bill of particulars california](https://downloadbillofsale.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Bill-of-Sale-and-Assignment-of-Contract-Rights-724x1024.jpg)
LAFCU hired Anaya Law Group to collect the debt and informed them that the principal due was $26,916.08, and that the debt was subject to a 9.65 percent interest rate.Īnaya Law Group filed a complaint on behalf of LAFCU against Afewerki on in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that the principal of Afewerki’s debt was $29,916.08 ($3,000 more than he in fact owed) and that the debt was subject to an interest rate of 9.965 percent (a figure that was 0.315 percent too high).Īfewerki retained a lawyer, who sent a demand for a bill of particulars to Anaya Law Group on June 6, 2014. Los Angeles Federal Credit Union (“LAFCU”) was owed money by Plaintiff Robel Afewerki, a credit card customer of LAFCU who had fallen behind on payments. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit).Ī copy of the court's order can be found here. The decision highlights the importance of the “Right to Cure” provisions of the RFDCPA.
![bill of particulars california bill of particulars california](https://d20ohkaloyme4g.cloudfront.net/img/document_thumbnails/537cfef0dda2b792e1cb764fc865f877/thumb_1200_1698.png)
While the defendant law firm received an unfavorable decision in regard to the FDCPA claim, the court provided a positive disposition for the defendant on the plaintiff’s claim under California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).
![bill of particulars california bill of particulars california](https://bresee.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DMV-time-1-1536x1024.jpg)
On August 18, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published an opinion in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case against a law firm that misstated the principal and interest due on a credit card loan in a collection effort.