Izett
Izett v. Crown Asset Management, LLC
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID ALLAN IZETT, Case No. 18-cv-05224-EMC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
9 v. MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION
10 CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; REBEKAH MOORE A/K/A REBEKAH Docket No. 44 11 DENYS TONER; THE RESOLUTION
LAW GROUP, APC; PERSOLVE, LLC;
12 and LUIS DUENAS, 13 Defendants.
14 15 Plaintiff David Allan Izett (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendants Crown Asset 16 Management (“Crown”); Rebekah Moore; the Resolution Group, APC; Persolve, LLC; and Luis 17 Duenas (collectively “Defendants”). Docket No. 31. The complaint alleges that Defendants made 18 misrepresentations in attempting to collect a debt owed by Plaintiff, thereby violating the Fair 19 Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p, and the Rosenthal Fair 20 Debt Collections Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), California Civil Code §§ 1788–1788.33. Currently 21 before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, Docket No. 44 (“Mot.”). For the 22 …