Lee v. Pep Boys-Manny Moe & Jack of California

ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This action arises out of the attempted collection of debt incurred by Plaintiff Andrew Lee (“Plaintiff’) as a result of his alleged misuse of his employee discount and for changing the oil on his car while at work at Defendant The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California (“Pep Boys”). Plaintiff alleges that the settlement demand letter that Defendants Palmer Rei-fler & Associates (“Palmer”) and Patricia Hastings (“Hastings”) sent to him violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 , and the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 . Now pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs cross-motion for partial summary judgment.' (Dkt. Nos’ 180, 181.) 1 Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on April 14, 2016, thé Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

A. Summary Judgment Evidence

. Pep Boys, a California corporation with retail auto stores throughout the state,…