Hapin

Hapin v. Arrow Financial Services

Good Law

428 F. Supp. 2d 1057·2006 WL 1096805·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45001

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 24, 2006C06-00637 MJJCalifornia1,869 words

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Arrow Financial Services, L.L.C.’s (“Defendant”, “Arrow”) motion to dismiss. The motion is opposed by Herbert Hapin (“Plaintiff’). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Arrow is in the business of collecting defaulted debts. On April 6, 2005, Arrow sent Plaintiff an initial collection letter (the “letter”) in connection to an alleged debt due to Household Bank (SB)NA (“Creditor”). The letter read as follows:

On January 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed this class action suit, alleging that Arrow’s collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“the Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1788 et seq. The Complaint alleges that the letter violates § 1692e because of “the misleading and contradictory description of Plaintiff as a customer.. .[and] of Sam Jacobs as an ‘account representative’ ” and “the false, deceptive, and misleading representation that [Defendant] will help Plaintiff regain his financial…

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.