Benton v. Collect Access, LLC CA2/3, B316886

Background

Collect Access, LLC (represented by Zee Law Group) sued Tom C. Benton in 2010 to collect an alleged unpaid credit card debt assigned by Advanta Bank.
Collect Access obtained a default judgment, which was later set aside when Benton moved to vacate it due to improper service; the collection action was then dismissed with prejudice for failure to serve the complaint within five years.
In 2019, Benton sued Collect Access, Zee Law, CardWorks, Inc., and CardWorks Servicing, LLC, alleging the underlying collection lawsuit was meritless, based on fabricated debt, and violated the FDCPA and RFDCPA, also asserting malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
Collect Access and Zee Law moved to strike Benton’s lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP statute; CardWorks moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no connection to the debt or collection efforts.
The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion (striking claims against Collect Access and Zee Law) and entered summary judgment in favor of CardWorks.
Benton appealed both orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the anti-SLAPP statute protect Collect Access and Zee Law from Benton's claims?	Their actions were unlawful and thus not protected petitioning activity.	Filing debt collection lawsuits is constitutionally protected activity; plaintiff failed to show minimal merit.	Claims arise from protected activity; Benton did not establish minimal merit; anti-SLAPP motion properly granted.
Are the FDCPA and RFDCPA claims time-barred?	Claims did not accrue until court dismissed the collection case in 2019.	Claims accrued with the original lawsuit and judgment; all statute of limitations expired by the time Benton sued.	Claims are time-barred, no viable argument supporting a later accrual date.
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to CardWorks?	CardWorks is a successor to Advanta and involved with the allegedly fabricated debt; evidence tipped in their favor.	CardWorks acquired no interest in Benton’s account, was not involved in underlying suit, and provided unrefuted evidence.	Summary judgment was proper; no triable fact as to CardWorks's involvement or liability.
Was the denial of a continuance for further discovery an abuse of discretion?	Further discovery would show errors in defendants’ claims about bankruptcy and account transfers.	Sought discovery was irrelevant and would not affect outcome; plaintiff did not show what further discovery would produce.	No abuse of discretion; plaintiff failed to show discovery was likely to produce material evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (Cal. 2019) (explaining purpose and procedures of California's anti-SLAPP statute)
Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (clarified analysis for determining claims arising from protected activity under anti-SLAPP)
Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (filing a lawsuit is a protected First Amendment petitioning activity)
Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) (litigation privilege bars abuse of process claims arising from communicative acts in judicial proceedings)
Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (anti-SLAPP protections do not extend to criminal conduct)
Hagberg v. California Federal Bank, 32 Cal.4th 350 (Cal. 2004) (litigation privilege bars most tort claims except for malicious prosecution)
Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. 1989) (legal standards for malicious prosecution claims)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (burden-shifting and standards for summary judgment)