Grant v. Unifund CCR Partners
842 F. Supp. 2d 1234
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiff Kimberly Grant filed a putative class action against Unifund CCR Partners and Unifund Corp. alleging FDCPA, abuse of process, conversion, and UCL claims.
- In 2008, Unifund CCR obtained a default judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court for $2,513.13 after plaintiff did not respond to the complaint.
- A writ of execution was issued in 2009 to garnish plaintiff's bank account.
- Plaintiff moved to vacate the default judgment in state court in 2011; the motion was denied.
- Plaintiff filed the federal action on September 30, 2011; defendants moved for summary judgment on issues including Rooker-Feldman, collateral estoppel, and FDCPA validity.
- The court granted summary judgment, dismissing most claims and addressing the FDCPA §1692g(a) notice issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rooker-Feldman applicability to federal claims | Rooker-Feldman should not bar federal claims post-state judgment. | Doctrine bars claims that challenge state-court judgments. | Rooker-Feldman bars the claims premised on the state-court judgments. |
| FDCPA §1692g(a) notice requirement compliance | Defendants failed to properly mail notice; discovery needed to prove mailing. | Evidence shows a May 29, 2008 notice was sent and not returned. | Notice satisfied; §1692g(a) claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Collateral estoppel and litigation privilege | State court findings do not preclude federal claims. | State court judgments and privilege bar the federal claims. | Claims barred by preclusive effects and privilege; dismissal appropriate. |
| Agency liability of Unifund Corp. for Unifund CCR | Unifund Corp. liable as an agent for the disputed conduct. | Agency claims fail as Unifund CCR's acts are the basis; Unifund Corp. not liable. | Claims against Unifund Corp. dismissed as the underlying claims against Unifund CCR fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer Cnty., Inc., 171 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir.1999) (mailing presumed received; burden to rebut receipt)
- In re Bucknum, 951 F.2d 204 (9th Cir.1991) (clear and convincing evidence required to rebut presumed mailing)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court 2005) (Rooker-Feldman applies to collateral challenges to state-court judgments)
- Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir.2001) (Rooker-Feldman scope and intertwined claims)
- Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855 (9th Cir.2008) (intertwined state and federal determinations test)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011) (limits of Rooker-Feldman; statute or rule challenge allowed)
- Campbell v. California, 138 F.3d 772 (9th Cir.1998) (Rule 56(d) discovery requirements and continuance standards)