Acosta

Acosta v. Patenaude & Felix

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20203:19-cv-00954California4,300 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

BACKGROUND

22 This consumer class action arises from Plaintiff Amanda Acosta’s (“Plaintiff”) 23 allegations that Defendant Patenaude & Felix sent Plaintiff and other similarly situated 24 consumers letters attempting to collect upon an alleged debt which were in violation of 15 25

1 Due to the current COVID-19 national health emergency, all civil matters are being handled by telephonic appearances. Order of the Chief Judge, No. 18-A. Notice was provided to the public of the U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”). Based on these facts, named Plaintiff Amanda Acosta brought suit against Defendant alleging a single cause of action for violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Plaintiff filed this action on May 22, 2019. [Doc. No. 1.2] On July 12, 2019, Defendant filed an answer. [Doc. No. 8.] On February 24, 2020, the parties filed a notice of settlement. [Doc. No. 25.] On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and the proposed notice of settlement to class members (“Class Notice”). [Doc. No. 29.] On May 14, 2020, the Court…

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.