Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Diaz v. Kubler Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 12, 2015

TAMARA DIAZ, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KUBLER CORPORATION, DBA Alternative Recovery Management, Defendant-Appellant

Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California April 7, 2015

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.

SUMMARY [**]

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.

OPINION

Page 1327

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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.