Facts

Tom C. Benton filed a complaint against Collect Access, LLC (Collect) , Zee Law Group (Zee), CardWorks, Inc. (CW), Advanta Bank, and CardWroks Servicing, LLC (CWS) for violation of the Fair Debt Practices ACT (FDCPA), violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices ACT (RFDCPA), malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Benton's claims alleged that the defendants pursued a meritless lawsuit relating to the collection of a debt associated with a credit card. Defendants Collect and Zee brought an Anti-SLAPP motion seeking to strike the entirety of Benton's complaint. Defendants CW and CWS moved for summary judgment.

PLAINTIFF'S CONETNIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant filed a meritless action relating to a collection of a debt associated with a credit card he never owned. Plaintiff contended that defendant filed a false proof of service of summons which individuated substituted service on a person not associated with plaintiff at plaintiff's former place of business from years ago. Plaintiff contended that defendants obtained a default judgment based on a fraudulent declaration relating to a credit card plaintiff never owned. As a result of the lawsuit, plaintiff contended that defendants levied $45,000 from plaintiff's retirement bank account.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all of the contentions. Defendants Collect and Zee contended that the lawsuit related to their conduct in the underlying action, which is protected activity. Defendants Collect and Zee contended that plaintiff's claim lacked merit because defendant Zee is not a debt collector under the FDCPA and RFDCPA. Defendants Collect and Zee contended that plaintiff's RFDCPA and FDCPA claims were time barred. Defendants Collect and Zee contended that all claims were subjected to the litigation privilege. Defendants CW and CWS contended that plaintiff had made no reference in the pleadings with respect to CWS or CWI. Defendants CW and CWS contended that they never had a role with the underlying business credit card account. Defendants CW and CWS contended that plaintiff's FDCPA and RFDCPA claims failed because the subject debt related to business debts.

Result

Defendants' anti-SLAPP and summary judgment motions were granted.