The People v. Persolve, LLC
218 Cal. App. 4th 1267
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- People filed a civil action against Persolve, LLC and its attorneys for violations of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, plus one UCL claim.
- Complaint alleged deceptive and unlawful debt collection practices, including misstatements of totals, improper time-period verifications, improper attorney-fee claims, and publication of debtor information.
- Trial court Sustained demurrer without leave to amend, holding the communications were privileged under Civil Code section 47(a) (b) and that no exception applied.
- Komarova and other authorities showed potential exceptions when the act challenged is specific and inoperable if shielded by the privilege.
- Court recognized the unfair competition law borrows violations of other laws and may be inapplicable when a specific statute is more protective and operable.
- Disposition: judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings; costs awarded to the People.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the litigation privilege bar the UC L claim based on CA/Federal Act violations? | People argue exceptions apply where acts are prohibited by CA/Federal Act. | Persolve argues privilege generally bars such claims. | No; specific CA/Federal Act violations are exempt from the privilege. |
| Are UC L claims based on CA Act or Federal Act violations barred because they are not under those statutes? | People rely on specific prohibitions to carve out exception. | Persolve contends the UC L is too broad to override privilege. | Claims based on specific violations are not barred; safe harbor narrows the privilege. |
Key Cases Cited
- Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc., 175 Cal.App.4th 324 (Cal.App. 2009) (specific prohibitions override privilege; public protections favored)
- Rubin v. Green, 4 Cal.4th 1187 (Cal. 1993) (retaliatory litigation protections limit UC L when tied to underlying suit)
- Gallegos v. Pacific Lumber Co., 158 Cal.App.4th 950 (Cal.App. 2008) (state/public protection; applicability of privilege in statutory context)
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (unfair competition scope; statutory borrowing of unlawful acts)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990) (publication connected to judicial proceedings; basis for privilege)