This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 01/12/2022 at 05:38:19 (UTC).

Chambers v. Merchants and Medical Credit Corporation Inc., et al.

Case Summary

On 02/28/2018 Chambers filed an Other lawsuit against Merchants and Medical Credit Corporation Inc . This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Walsh, Brian C. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******4210

  • Filing Date:

    02/28/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Pamela Sheree Chambers

Defendants

Merchants and Medical Credit Corporation Inc

David Edward Cairnduff

James Matthew Hresko

Terry Lee Brewer

Andrea Ina-Michelle Church

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Schwinn, Fred W.

Roulston, Raeon Rodrigo

Salmonsen, Matthew C

Raeon Rodrigo Roulston

Matthew C Salmonsen

Fred W. Schwinn

Defendant Attorneys

Goodman, Brett B

Lee, Christine

Brett B Goodman

Christine Lee

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

3/13/2018 Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

3/13/2018 Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

3/13/2018 Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

3/13/2018 Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Amendment

10/20/2021 Amendment

Amendment

10/20/2021 Amendment

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

11/2/2021 Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

11/2/2021 Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Declaration

11/4/2021 Declaration

Proof of Service: Mail

11/4/2021 Proof of Service: Mail

Proof of Service: Electronic

11/4/2021 Proof of Service: Electronic

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

11/4/2021 Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Motion: Leave

11/4/2021 Motion: Leave

Affidavit

11/24/2021 Affidavit

Affidavit

11/24/2021 Affidavit

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

11/24/2021 Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Motion: Quash

11/24/2021 Motion: Quash

Declaration

11/29/2021 Declaration

190 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/19/2022
  • HearingDescription: Jury Trial: Long Cause; Department: Department 1; Time: 9:00AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2022
  • HearingDescription: Conference: Trial Management; Department: Department 1; Time: 10:00AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2022
  • HearingDescription: Reserved: Summary Judgment; Department: Department 1; Time: 1:30PM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • HearingDescription: Motion: Leave to File; Department: Department 1; Time: 1:30PM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • HearingDescription: Motion: Quash; Department: Department 1; Time: 1:30PM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2022
  • HearingDescription: Conference: Case Management; Department: Department 1; Time: 2:30PM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2022
  • HearingDescription: Conference: Case Progress; Department: Department 1; Time: 4:00PM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDescription: Notice; Filed By: Superior Court of California,; Comment: Informal Discovery Conference set for 1/12/22 at 4pm D1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDescription: Declaration; Filed By: Andrea Church,; Comment: HRG 2/17/22 Andrea Ina-Michelle Church Declaration ISO Motion to Quash Service of Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDescription: Affidavit; Filed By: Terry Brewer, Andrea Church,; Comment: HRG 2/17/22 Andrea Ina-Michelle Church Declaration ISO Motion to Quash Service of Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
182 More Docket Entries
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketDescription: Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies); Filed By: Merchants and Medical Credit Corporation Inc,; Comment: Answer to Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDescription: Proof of Service; Filed By: Pamela Chambers,; Comment: Served: James Matthew Hresko

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDescription: Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil); Filed By: Pamela Chambers,; Comment: Served: James Matthew Hresko

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDescription: Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil); Filed By: Pamela Chambers,; Comment: Served: David E. Cairnduff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDescription: Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil); Filed By: Pamela Chambers,; Comment: Served: Merchants and Medical Credit Corporation Inc

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • DocketDescription: Fee Waiver Order-Grant; Filed By: Pamela Chambers,; Comment: Proposed Order on Court Fee Waiver

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • DocketDescription: Summons: Issued/Filed; Filed By: Pamela Chambers,; Comment: Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • DocketDescription: Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed By: Pamela Chambers,; Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • DocketDescription: Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies); Filed By: Pamela Chambers,; Comment: Class Action Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • DocketDescription: New Filed Case

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

2/28/2018 3:33 PM

Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) Clerk of Court

Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) Superior Court of CA,

Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) County of Santa Clara CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 18CV324210

12 South First Street, Suite 1014 Reviewed By: E. Fang

San Jose, California 95113-2418

Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100

Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190

Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PAMELA SHEREE CHAMBERS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

PAMELA SHEREE CHAMBERS, Case No. 18CV324210 individually and on behalf of all others (Unlimited Civil Case)

similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

. PLAmALLE FOR STATUTORY DAMAGES MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT California Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.33 CORPORATION, INC., a Michigan California Civil Code §§ 1812.700-1812.702

corporation; DAVID EDWARD CAIRNDUFF, individually and in his official capacity; JAMES MATTHEW HRESKO, individually and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, PAMELA SHEREE CHAMBERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, based on information and belief and investigation of counsel, except for those allegations which pertain to the named Plaintiff or her attorneys (which are alleged on personal knowledge), hereby makes the following allegations:

INTRODUCTION

3. Plaintiff, PAMELA SHEREE CHAMBERS, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, seeks statutory damages against Defendants arising from their routine practice of sending 1nitial written communications, like the one sent to Plaintiff, which fail to provide the “Consumer Collection Notice” required by California Civil Code § 1812.700(a), in a type-size that is at least the same type-size as that used to inform the debtor of his or her specific debt or in at least 12- point type, in violation of California Civil Code § 1812.701(b).

4. As a result, Defendants have engaged in unlawful acts in connection with their attempt to collect defaulted consumer debts from Plaintiff and the Class.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 and California Constitution Article VI, § 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all cases except those given by statute to other trial courts.” This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Civil Code § 1788.30(f), which provides for enforcement in any court of competent jurisdiction. The statutes under which this action is brought do not grant jurisdiction to any other trial court in California.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over each Defendant named herein because, based on

information and belief, each Defendant is a corporation or association authorized to do business in

' California Civil Code § 1788.1(a)(1). California and registered with the California Secretary of State, or does sufficient business, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, is a citizen of California, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market through the promotion, sale, marketing and/or distribution of goods and services in California and thereby having such other contacts with California so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

7. Venue is proper in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 395 and 395.5, because one or more of the violations alleged in this Complaint arise in the County of Santa Clara. Venue is also proper in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395(b), because this action arises from an extension of credit intended primarily for personal, family, or household use and Plaintiff (the alleged borrower) resided in the County of Santa Clara at the commencement of this action.

8. The total amount in controversy as to Plaintiff and each member of the Proposed Class does not exceed seventy-four thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine dollars ($74,999) each, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff disclaims any compensatory damages, punitive damages, declaratory, injunctive, or equitable relief greater than ($74,999) per individual Class member. Plaintiff and the Proposed Class limit their total class wide claims to less than four million, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine dollars ($4,999,999.00).

9. Plaintiff and the proposed Class seek only statutory damages in this action and do not allege in this Class Action Complaint for Statutory Damages that they, or any of them, have suffered a concrete injury within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution and the Supreme Court’s related interpretation.’

/1]

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff, PAMELA SHEREE CHAMBERS (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), is a natural person residing in Santa Clara County, California. Plaintiff is a “debtor” as that term 1s defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(h) and a “disabled person” within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(g).

11. Defendant, MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION, INC. (hereinafter “MMCC”), 1s a Michigan corporation engaged in the business of collecting defaulted consumer debts in this state with its principal place of business located at: 6324 Taylor Drive, Flint, Michigan 48507. MMCC may be served as follows: Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc., c/o David E. Cairnduff, Resident Agent, 6324 Taylor Drive, Flint, Michigan 48507. The principal business of MMCC is the collection of defaulted consumer debts using the mails, telephone, and internet, and MMCC regularly attempts to collect defaulted consumer debts alleged to be due another. MMCC is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(c). MMCC is a “third-party debt collector subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq.)”, within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1812.700(a).

12. Defendant, DAVID EDWARD CAIRNDUFF (hereimafter “CAIRNDUFF”), is a natural personemployee, agent, officer, and/or director of MMCC at all relevant times. CAIRNDUFF may be served at his current business address at: David Edward Cairnduff, Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc., 6324 Taylor Drive, Flint, Michigan 48507 and at his residence address at: David Edward Cairnduff, 4495 East Rolston Road, Linden, Michigan 48451. CAIRNDUFF is a “debt collector” as that term 1s defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(c). CAIRNDUFF is a “third-party debt collector subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. believes, and thereon alleges that CAIRNDUFF is liable for the acts of MMCC because he sets and approves MMCC collection policies, practices, procedures, and he directed and participated in the unlawful activities described herein.

13. Defendant, JAMES MATTHEW HRESKO (hereinafter “HRESKQO”), 1s a natural personemployee, agent, officer, and/or director of MMCC at all relevant times. HRESKO may be served at his current business address at: James Matthew Hresko, Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc., 6324 Taylor Drive, Flint, Michigan 48507 and at his residence address at: James Matthew Hresko, 8399 Potter Road, Flushing, Michigan 48433. HRESKO is a “debt collector” as that term 1s defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(c). HRESKO is a “third-party debt collector subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq.)”, within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1812.700(a). Plaintiff 1s informed and believes, and thereon alleges that HRESKO is liable for the acts of MMCC because he sets and approves MMCC collection policies, practices, procedures and he directed and participated in the unlawful activities described herein.

14. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, governmental, or otherwise, of Defendants, DOES 1 through 10, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of said Defendants have been ascertained, Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint accordingly. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant designated herein as a DOE 1is responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and caused damages thereby to the Plaintiff, as hereinafter alleged. Defendant, DOES 1-10, are, and each of them i1s, a “debt collector” as that term 1s defined by California Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq.)”, within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1812.700(a).

15. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, employee, and/or joint venturer of his/her/its Co-Defendants, and each of them, and at all said times, cach Defendant was acting in the full course and scope of said agency, service, employment, and/or joint venture. Any reference hereafter to “Defendants” without further qualification 1s meant by Plaintiff to refer to each Defendant, and all of them, named above.

16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, DOES 1-10, inclusive, were and are individuals, corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations, sole proprietorships, and/or other business entities organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, or the laws of some other state or foreign jurisdiction, and that said Defendants, and each of them, have regularly conducted business in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

17. On a date or dates unknown to Plaintiff, Plaintiff 1s alleged to have incurred a financial obligation in the form of a consumer credit account issued by CHASE BANK USA, N.A. (hereinafter the “alleged debt”). Plaintiff generally denies that any debt 1s owed. The alleged debt to CHASE BANK USA, N.A., was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and is therefore a “consumer debt” as that term is defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(f).

18. Thereafter, Plaintiff was unable to pay the alleged debt and defaulted on her payments to CHASE BANK USA, N.A.

19. On or about February 1, 2018, Defendants sent a collection letter (Exhibit “1”) to 20. A true and accurate copy of Defendants’ collection letter to Plaintiff 1s attached hereto, marked Exhibit “1,” and by this reference is incorporated herein.

21. The collection letter (Exhibit “1”’) is dated February 1, 2018.

22. The collection letter (Exhibit “1”) was the first written communication from Defendants to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the alleged debt.

23. The collection letter (Exhibit “1”’) notifies Plaintiff of her specific debt in 11-point type.

24. The collection letter (Exhibit “1”) provides the notice required by California Civil Code § 1812.700(a) in 10-point type.

25. The collection letter (Exhibit “1”") fails to provide the notice required by California Civil Code § 1812.700(a) in a type-size that is at least the same type-size as that used to inform Plaintiff of her specific debt or in at least 12-point type.

26. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct was directed towards a disabled person.

27. As a disabled person subjected to Defendants’ abusive, deceptive, and unfair collection practices, Plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages, pursuant to California Civil Code § 3345.

DEFENDANTS’ ROUTINE PRACTICES

28. It is the standard practice and policy of Defendants to send initial collection communications in the form of Exhibit “1”” which seek to collect defaulted consumer debts incurred for personal, family, or household purpose.

29. It is the standard practice and policy of Defendants to send initial collection required by California Civil Code § 1812.700(a), in a type-size that is at least the same type-size as that used to inform the debtor of his or her specific debt or in at least 12-point type, in violation of California Civil Code § 1812.701(b).

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

30. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated.

31. Plaintiff tentatively defines the class as (1) all persons with addresses in California (i1) to whom Defendants sent, or caused to be sent, an initial written communication in the form of Exhibit “1,” (ii1) in an attempt to collect a defaulted consumer debt originally owed to CHASE BANK USA, N.A., (iv) which were not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (v) during the period one year prior to the date of filing this action through the date of class certification.

32. Excluded from the class would be any officers, directors, or legal representatives of Defendants, and any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the Class definition and Class period based on the results of discovery.

33. The class i1s so numerous that joinder of all members 1s impractical. On information and belief, collection notices in the form of Exhibit “1” have been sent to hundreds of California class members.

34. Defendants have acted with respect to the Class, in a manner generally applicable to Plaintiff and each Class member. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved in this action, which affects all class members. Questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any questions peculiar to individual class members. The a. Whether Defendants are debt collectors; and

b. Whether Defendants sent Plaintiff and the class 1nitial written communication in the form of Exhibit “1” which fail to contain the “Consumer Collection Notice” required by California Civil Code § 1812.700(a), in a type-size that is at least the same type-size as that used to inform the debtor of his or her specific debt or in at least 12-point type, in violation of California Civil Code § 1812.701(b).

35. There are no individual questions of law or fact, other than whether a class member was sent the offending collection communication, which can be determined by ministerial inspection of Defendants’ records.

36. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the Class members. Plaintiff is committed to vigorously litigating this matter. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class claims and litigation brought pursuant to various consumer protection statutes, including the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (“FDCPA”), the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.33 (“RFDCPA”) and the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788.50-1788.64 (“CFDBPA™). Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this claim. Plaintiff and her counsel will vigorously pursue this matter.

37. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class in that Plaintiff and other Class members were similarly harmed by the actions of Defendants and the claims alleged herein all arise from the same operative facts and are based on the same legal theories. Plaintiff 1s a member of the Class she seeks to represent and she has suffered harm due to the unfair,

deceptive and unlawful practices of Defendants. 38. Defendants have acted or refused to act, with respect to some or all issues presented in this Complaint, on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making it appropriate to provide relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

39. A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Most of the class members who received written communications in the form of Exhibit “1” have no knowledge that their rights are being violated by illegal collection practices. The interest of the class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims against Defendants is small because the maximum damages in an individual action are $1,000, pursuant to the RFDCPA, California Civil Code § 1788.17.° Management of this class action is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many other class actions.

40. A class action is the best available method of the efficient adjudication of this litigation because individual litigation of Class members’ claims would be impracticable and unduly burdensome to the courts, and have the potential to result in inconsistent or contradictory judgments. There are no unusual difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of this litigation as a class action. A class action presents fewer management problems and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

41. Certification of the Class under California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 i1s appropriate in that:

a. The questions of law or fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; and

b. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

42. Certification of a class under California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 is also appropriate in that Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

43. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs against Defendants, pursuant to the RFDCPA, California Civil Code § 1788.17.°

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION CALIFORNIA CONSUMER COLLECTION NOTICE

44. Plaintiff brings the first cause of action against Defendants under California Civil Code §§ 1812.700-1812.702.

45. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

46. Plaintiff 1s a “debtor” as that term 1s defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(h).

47. Defendant, MMCC, 1s a “debt collector” as that term 1s defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(¢c).

48. Defendant, MMCC, is a “third-party debt collector subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq.)”, within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1812.700(a).

49. Defendant, CAIRNDUFF, 1s a “debt collector” as that term i1s defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(¢).

50. Defendant, CAIRNDUFF, is a “third-party debt collector subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq.)”, within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1812.700(a).

51. Defendant, HRESKO, is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(c). 52. Defendant, HRESKO, is a “third-party debt collector subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq.)”, within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1812.700(a).

53. The financial obligation alleged to be owed by Plaintiff 1s a “consumer debt” as that term is defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(f).

54. Defendants failed to include the notice required by California Civil Code § 1812.700(a) in their first written notice to Plaintiff in a type-size that was at least the same type-size as that used to inform Plaintiff of her specific debt or in at least 12-point type, in violation of California Civil Code § 1812.701(b).

55. As a result of Defendants’ violations of California Civil Code § 1812.701(b), Plaintiff is entitled to an award of statutory damages in an amount not to exceed $1,000 against each Defendant, pursuant to California Civil Code § 1812.702.”

56. As a disabled person subjected to Defendants’ abusive, deceptive, and unfair collection practices, Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages, pursuant to California Civil Code § 3345.

57. As aresult of Defendants’ violations of California Civil Code § 1812.701(b), the Class is entitled to an award of statutory damages in an amount not to exceed the lesser of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or 1 percent of the net worth of each Defendant, pursuant to California Civil Code § 1788.17.°

58. As a result of Defendants’ violations of California Civil Code § 1812.701(b), Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to California Civil Code § 1812.702.7

59. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1788.32, the remedies provided under > California Civil Code § 1788.17, incorporating by reference 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692k(a)(2)(A) and (B)(i). California Civil Code § 1788.17 are intended to be cumulative and in addition to any other procedures,

rights or remedies that Plaintiff may have under any other provision of law.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff requests that this Court:

a) b)

S

h)

1)

Assume jurisdiction in this proceeding;

Certify this case as a class action and appoint Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to represent the Class;

Find that Defendants’ collection letter attached hereto as Exhibit “1” violates California Civil Code § 1812.701(b);

Award Plaintiff statutory damages in an amount not to exceed $1,000 against each Defendant, pursuant to California Civil Code § 1788.17° for violation of California Civil Code § 1812.701(b);

Award the class statutory damages in an amount not to exceed the lesser of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or 1 percent of the net worth of each Defendant, pursuant to California Civil Code § 1788.17,° for Defendants’ violation of California Civil Code § 1812.701(b);

Enter an Order enjoining Defendants from continuing the practices at issue in this case, pursuant to California Civil Code § 3422;

Award Plaintiff the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to California Civil Code § 1788.17;"°

Award Plaintiff treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3345; and

Award Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: February 28, 2018

CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.

By: /s/ Fred W. Schwinn

Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575)

[1Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622)

[ Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.

12 South First Street, Suite 1014

San Jose, California 95113-2418

Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100

Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190

Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.compage 14 can't be parsed

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Superior Court of California is a litigant