Mansour-White v. Grant & Weber CA2/2

Filed 10/15/13 Mansour-White v. Grant & Weber CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NATALIE MANSOUR-WHITE et al., B239900

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC435412) v.

GRANT & WEBER, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Reversed.

Dix and Associates and Lloyd D. Dix for Defendant and Appellant.

The Law Office of Jay W. Smith and Jay W. Smith for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

______________________

Grant & Weber, Inc. (Grant & Weber) brought a debt collection action against Natalie Mansour-White (Natalie) and Robert White (Robert; collectively the Whites). Upon learning that the debt had been forgiven, Grant & Weber voluntarily dismissed its complaint against the Whites. The Whites then filed the instant malicious prosecution action against Grant & Weber. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the Whites had established all elements of malicious prosecution and that Grant & Weber had committed two violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act; Civ. Code, § 1788 et seq.). Grant & Weber appeals. After reviewing the appellate record, we reverse the judgment. We conclude that there is no evidence of malice, an essential element of the Whites’ malicious prosecution claim. We also conclude that all of the evidence presented at trial proves Grant & Weber’s bona fide error defense, thereby precluding liability for the alleged Rosenthal Act violations. It follows that the Whites are not entitled to attorney fees. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Underlying Action Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group, PC (Imaging Group) provided medical services, such as C.T. scans and M.R.I.’s, to Robert. While Robert’s health insurance carrier covered a substantial portion of his medical expenses, a portion remained unpaid. Natalie was trying to work out the debt and was eventually told by someone from the Imaging Group to contact the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Charity Care Program (Charity Care Program) for financial assistance. From that point forward, unbeknownst to the parties involved, it seems that many activities were taking place almost at the same time: On February 16, 2009, the Imaging Group assigned the Whites’ debt to Grant & Weber for collection. At issue specifically were two unpaid accounts: (1) Account No. 2389723.1 for $1,301, and (2) Account No. 2349012.1 for $394. Not knowing that the Whites were seeking financial aid, Grant & Weber’s attorney, Reid L. Steinfeld, prepared a complaint against the Whites for $1,695 (the total amount of the two unpaid accounts), plus attorney fees and costs; that complaint was prepared by April 24, 2009. After it was