Williams v. Emergency Groups' Office CA2/2

California Court of Appeal May 6, 2014 No. B246724Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not contain an exception for debt collectors based on whether a debt was delinquent at the time it was obtained. Furthermore, there remains a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant communicated with the plaintiff after the debt became delinquent.

Issues

Whether the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act incorporates the FDCPA's definition of 'debt collector' and its associated exceptions.
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the timing of when the debt was obtained.
Whether there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant communicated with the plaintiff after the debt was delinquent.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court erred by imposing an exception that does not exist in the Act.”

“The Act does not incorporate the FDCPA’s definition of a debt collector or any of its exceptions to the definition.”

“There is a triable issue as to whether EGO communicated with Williams after the debt was delinquent.”

Filed 5/6/14 Williams v. Emergency Groups’ Office CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RUSSELL WILLIAMS, B246724

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC400347) v.

EMERGENCY GROUPS’ OFFICE,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles F. Palmer, Judge. Reversed.

Law Offices of Ron Bochner and Ron Bochner for Plaintiff and Appellant.

White & Case, Bryan A. Merryman, Earle Miller; Michelman & Robinson and Andrew H. Selesnick for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________

Russell Williams (Williams) appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of respondent Emergency Groups’ Office (EGO) on his claim for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Act). We reverse. FACTS On December 30, 2004, Williams received medical services from Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Associates (Mission Viejo). On behalf of Mission Viejo, EGO sent Williams a bill for $281. Over the next couple of years, EGO sent Williams a plethora of statements. He sent EGO $5 a month even though EGO never agreed to piecemeal payment. In March 2007, the matter was referred to a collection agency. But before any collection activities took place, EGO removed the account from collection. Subsequently, it sent Williams monthly statements, the last of which was dated November 19, 2007.1 Williams filed a class action against EGO under the Act. He alleged, inter alia, that EGO acted unlawfully when it violated four provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) that are incorporated into the Act (Civ. Code, § 1788.17).2 Specifically, he alleged: (1) on its notices, EGO failed to state, “This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose” (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11)); (2) it used false, misleading or deceptive representations in connection with debt collection (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2) & (10)); (3) instead of using its

Williams v. Emergency Groups' Office CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

RUSSELL WILLIAMS, B246724

EMERGENCY GROUPS’ OFFICE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief