Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California April 7,
Appeal from the United States District Court. for the Southern District of California. D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01742-MMA-BGS. Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding.
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Reversing the district court's summary judgment and remanding, the panel held that a collection letter seeking ten percent interest on a debt did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or California's Rosenthal Act.
The panel held that the letter did not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1), and thus did not violate the Rosenthal Act, because the amount sought was authorized by California state law, which allows recovery of prejudgment interest on a debt that is certain or capable of being made certain, even if a judgment has not yet been obtained.
June D. Coleman (argued), Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard PC, Sacramento, California, for Defendant-Appellant.
Michael L. Crowley (argued) and Andre L. Verdun, Crowley Law Group, San Diego, California; Eric A. LaGuardia, LaGuardia Law, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas P. Griffin, Jr., Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP, Sacramento, California; Brian Melendez, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Amici Curiæ ACA International and California Association of Collectors, Inc.
Before: Barry G. Silverman and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges and James Donato,[*] District Judge.
DONATO, District Judge:
This appeal involves a suit by a debtor against a debt collector, alleging that by sending a collection letter that sought ten percent interest on the debt, the debt collector violated the provision of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA" ) codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) and thereby also violated California's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the " Rosenthal Act" ), Cal. Civ. Code § § 1788-1788.33. The district court agreed that the debt collector violated the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act, and granted summary judgment in the debtor's ...