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
Rosental Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Gayle Norton v. Mandarich Law Group LLC

Published: Aug. 18, 2023 | Result Date: Mar. 23, 2023 | Filing Date: Mar. 22, 2022 |

Case number: 1:22-cv-00327-JLT-SKO Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Jennifer L. Thurston

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Lauren B. Veggian
(The Cardoza Law Corp.)

Michael F. Cardoza
(The Cardoza Law Corp.)


Defendant

June D. Coleman
(Messer Strickler Ltd.)


Facts

Gayle Norton filed suit against Mandarich Law Group.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that she took out a CareCredit loan for personal, family, or household purposes from Synchrony Bank; that she fell behind on the payments for the loan; that her loan was purchased by Midland Credit Management, Inc.; that the defendant was employed by Midland as its agent-in-fact to collect the debt; that, on November 9, 2021, she wrote to Midland to tell them she refused to pay the debt and not to contact her again; that, on January 3, 2022, she wrote a second letter to that same effect to Midland; that she received confirmation from the U.S. Postal Service that Midland received the letter on January 14, 2022; that she received a letter from the defendant on February 16, 2022; that although she never sent a letter to cease contact directly to the defendant, it contacted her on behalf of Midland in response to her letter; that the defendant's letter referenced a request for verification despite the fact the plaintiff had sent no communications to defendant or Midland; that the defendant must have been referring to her letters to Midland, so the defendant must have had actual knowledge of the letters; that the defendant's letter was a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and that the defendant had violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defendant denied any liability or wrongdoing. Moreover, the defendant contended that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because she admitted she had not sent a letter to it directly, which was a necessary element of the statutory provisions underlying her claim.

Result

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.


#141254

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

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