Gold

Gold v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Good Law
82 F. Supp. 3d 1064·2015 WL 1037700·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29392
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 10, 2015Case No. 13-cv-02019-BLFCalifornia6,926 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Freeman, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT TESTIMONY; GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF 81, 82, 90, 96]

In 1977, Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (e). This class action lawsuit tests whether a debt collector transgresses the FDCPA and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ. Code. § 1788 et seq., when it states in a debt collection letter that it can reduce a debtor’s “past due balance with” the original creditor. Before the Court are the parties’ respective Motions for Summary Judgment, as well as Defendants’ Motion to Strike Expert Report. The Court heard argument on all motions on January 8, 2015.

After careful consideration of the parties’ respective written submissions and oral…

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.