Tuck

Tuck v. Cascadians, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 2, 20203:19-cv-01505California1,285 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

20 On August 12, 2019, Plaintiffs Roy and Deborah Tuck, proceeding pro se, filed a 21 Complaint against Defendants Yes Energy Management, Inc. (“YEM”); Cascadians, Inc. 22 (“Cascadians”); Champs; Associated Asset Management, LLC (“AAM”); Epsten Grinnel 23 & Howell, APC (“EG&H”); Wayne McMullen; Donnie Drake; Nancy McLennan; 24 Amanda Shaw; Annette Imoto; Michelle Dennis; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive. (ECF 25 No. 1). Plaintiffs alleged claims against all Defendants except Defendant YEM for 1) 26 violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”); 2) violations of the 27 federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); 3) violations of the California 28 Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; 4) misprision of felony; and 5) malicious prosecution. Plaintiffs alleged claims against all Defendants for 1) abuse of process; 2) defamation; 3) invasion of privacy; and 4) civil conspiracy. On September 3, 2019, Defendants Wayne McMullen, Donnie Drake, and Nancy McLennan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 8). On October 15, 2019, Defendants AAM and Cascadians filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (ECF…

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.