Gross

Gross v. Judge CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2013G047549California3,267 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

Gross is a homeowner within the Westpark Maintenance District (Westpark), which is a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation. When Gross allegedly fell behind in his monthly assessment payments, Westpark commenced collections procedures. Acting in propria persona, Gross filed the instant action against three sets of defendants: (1) Westpark and its board of directors (hereafter collectively referred to in the singular as Westpark); (2) Community Legal Advisers, Inc., and attorney Mark T. Guithues (hereafter collectively referred to in the singular as CLA); and (3) the appellants, including the Judge Law Firm, its owner, attorney James Judge, and his son, Edward Judge, who is not an attorney but employed by the Judge Law Firm (hereafter collectively referred to as the Judge Law Firm Defendants unless the context indicates otherwise). The operative first amended complaint (the complaint) was premised on allegations all the defendants were attempting to collect more in assessments and fees than Gross owed. The complaint alleged James Judge was being sued “for his conduct and responsibility as a debt collector and not for any conduct inside any court action.”

1 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.