Facts

According to plaintiff, Martin D. Rouse Jr. had been estranged from Martin D. Rouse Sr. for many years, when the younger Rouse received a summons and complaint from Worldwide Asset Purchasing naming the father in an underlying collection lawsuit. Immediately after receiving the summons and complaint, Martin D. Rouse Jr. contacted the office of Worldwide Asset Purchasing's then-attorney, Rory Clark and informed them that they had attempted to serve the wrong man, and that he (the son) was unaware of the contact information for his father. The son was not allowed to speak to Rory Clark, but Jan Shapiro, an employee of the Law Office of Rory Clark took the call, and assured Rouse Jr. that the identity confusion would be addressed.

Rouse Jr., claimed to have followed up by mailing a letter to the law office, along with a copy of driver's license, although the law office later claimed it never received this mail. This telephone call and its content were corroborated at trial by the telephone records of the Law Office of Rory Clark. Some months later, Rouse Jr. learned that the summons and complaint naming his father had resulted in a default judgment, even though it had been "served" on the son. The judgment had been recorded at the County Recorder's office listing the address of the son, Martin D. Rouse Jr. This information came to light in the context of the son's home-refinancing attempts that were, according to Rouse, Jr., derailed as a result.

Rouse Jr. claimed that malice and intent, and disregard for the law was shown, in part, by the fact that Worldwide Asset Purchasing and the Law Office of Rory Clark proceeded to obtain the underlying default judgment, despite being informed that the attempted service of summons had only reached Rouse Jr., rather than the person being sued, and then listed Rouse Jr.'s residence as a "last known address" despite being informed that Rouse Sr. had never lived there.

Rouse Jr. also claimed he had received a number of collection calls and letters believed to be from Clark's office and claimed that he had also been the victim of another attempt to serve a lawsuit on his father, which due to timing, the son inferred was similarly perpetrated by Worldwide Asset Purchasing and the Law Office of Rory Clark.

According to defendants, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in 2004, the Law Offices of Rory Clark sent a single letter to Dale Rouse at an address that had been confirmed through a skip trace service. When the law firm received no response to the letter, it filed a lawsuit against Dale Rouse setting forth several aliases, none of which were Martin Dale Rouse Jr. The law firm did not place any calls to Martin Dale Rouse Jr. or Dale Rouse except when Martin Dale Rouse Jr. called and requested a return call. This was confirmed with telephone records. There was evidence that Martin D. Rouse Jr. received collection letters addressed to Dale Rouse from other collection agencies.

The law firm did receive a call from Martin Dale Rouse Jr. after service had been accomplished according to a registered process server. Martin D. Rouse Jr. was asked to send in a copy of his driver's license and his social security card, but the law firm never received it. The law firm took a default against Dale Rouse and recorded an abstract of judgment against all property owned by Dale Rouse. The law firm was required to provide the last known address for Dale Rouse and the address where Dale Rouse was served. The law firm used the address where the process server had substitute served Dale Rouse. This address happened to be the home of Martin D. Rouse, Jr. As is the custom and practice of the county recorder, the county recorder sent a notice to Dale Rouse at the last known address indicating that someone had recorded a judgment against all of Dale Rouse's real property in San Diego County.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff's last settlement demand was $400,000, which was withdrawn the evening before the last day of trial. Defendants last settlement offer was $33,000.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed $500,000 in lost finance opportunity and at least $500,000 in emotional distress. Part of the emotional distress was caused by watching the health of his fiancee, who had muscular dystrophy, worsen. Plaintiff contended he did have documentation of the lost re-finance opportunity, including a letter from the loan-broker, and an invoice from the loan broker, corroborated by the loan broker's testimony. Defendants contended that plaintiff had no documents that confirmed the lost refinance opportunity, including the preliminary title report, a credit application, a letter confirming the loan was approved or locked in, or a letter from the lender explaining that the lender was now unwilling to lend to plaintiff. Plaintiff did have a letter written by the loan broker and addressed to "to whom it may concern." The loan broker had written this letter at the request of plaintiff. When asked to explain the figures in the letter, she indicated that she would have to consult with plaintiff. Defendants also contended that the preliminary title company claimed it did not have an account to provide even a preliminary title report for the property at the time plaintiff claimed the lien appeared.

Result

Worldwide Asset Purchasing was dismissed on the judge's sua sponte motion for non-suit. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all remaining defendants.

Deliberation

four hours

Length

five days