Lemp

Lemp v. Seterus, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 20202:18-cv-01313California1,641 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARTIN LEMP, individually and on No. 2:18-cv-01313-TLN-KJN behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v.

SETERUS, INC.,

15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Martin Lemp’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 33.) Defendant Seterus, Inc. (“Defendant”) opposed the motion. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff replied. (ECF No. 35.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 33.) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), in which he alleges that Defendant charged fees for making mortgage payments online or over the phone in violation of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq. (hereinafter, “Rosenthal Act”). (ECF No. 13.) On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff seeks to…

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.