This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Unfair Competition

Phitsamay Fernandez, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC

Published: May 20, 2022 | Result Date: Feb. 14, 2022 | Filing Date: Jan. 30, 2020 |

Case number: 8:21-cv-00621-DOC-KES Settlement –  $1,645,840

Judge

David O. Carter

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Hassan A. Zavareei
(Tycko & Zavareei LLP)

Kristen G. Simplicio
(Tycko & Zavareei LLP)


Defendant

Aaron R. Goldstein
(Perkins Coie LLP)

David T. Biderman
(Perkins Coie LLP)

Michael J. Agoglia
(Alston & Bird LLP)

Tania L. Rice
(Alston & Bird LLP)


Facts

Rushmore Loan Management Services LCC is a loan servicer that is headquartered in California and services loans around the country. As part of its regular business, it collects on residential mortgage loan debts, including mortgage loan debt that is past due and/or delinquent, from residential mortgage holders. Phitsamay Fernandez brought a class action against Rushmore on behalf of a class of mortgagees with a mortgage loan serviced by Rushmore, from whom Rushmore collected a convenience fee during the period of January 1, 2013 through September 19, 2021.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant charged borrowers convenience fees when they made their monthly mortgage payments over the phone through a live agent or interactive voice response. Specifically, defendant charged a $5.00 fee when borrowers made payments by telephone using defendant's automated phone payment system, and a $10.00 fee when borrowers made payments by speaking with defendant's customer services representatives by telephone. Plaintiff argued that defendant charged borrowers these fees for payments made by telephone that far exceeded the actual costs of the telephone transaction services defendant utilizes, and pocketed the difference between the fees it charged to borrowers and the significantly lower costs it paid to provide telephone payment services, thereby profiting from the inflated fees it charged to borrowers. Plaintiff alleged that these fees violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, state debt collection laws, and California's Unfair Competition Law, and breached contracts with borrowers. Plaintiff contended that defendant breached its contracts with plaintiff and class members when it charged fees not agreed to in their uniform mortgage agreements, specifically prohibited by their mortgage agreements, and in excess of the amounts actually disbursed by defendant to pay for the cost of pay-to-pay transactions.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

The case settled for $1,645,840.


#138769

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390