The California State Appeals Court has issued rulings in a pair of cases involving the same plaintiff and defendant — a collection law firm — affirming a jury award against the law firm and reversing the $269,325.765 in attorney fees awarded by the trial court because it did not award fees for the work done opposing the law firm’s opposition to the award.
A copy of the ruling in the cases of Guzman v. Mandarich Law Group can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter, which included some text in 12-point type, and other text — the notice required by the California Consumer Collection Notice Act — in 10-point type. The plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit, alleging a violation of the section of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that specifies the required font size for disclosures. The suit sought statutory damages of $1,000 for the named plaintiff and the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the firm’s net worth for the rest of the class.
After learning of the suit, the firm sent the plaintiff the same notice it sent earlier, but with the right-sized type. The two sides attempted to settle the case — to no avail — and the trial court judge denied a motion for summary judgment from the defendant.
During trial, the managing attorney for the defendant testified that the letter template that was used was approved, provided all the typeface was 12-point. The first time he heard that the sizes were different was when he received the complaint in this case.
The jury awarded $4,887.41 in statutory damages — the maximum it was allowed to hand out. Admitting the violation was not intentional, the jury also found it was not the result of a bona fide error.
On appeal, the defendant argued it was unnecessarily forced to demonstrate that the violation resulted from bona fide error in order to avoid liability and that the jury was precluded from considering other elements to the defense.
“Having examined the entire cause within the context of the trial record, we conclude that it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to Mandarich would have been reached had the trial court instructed the jury based on section 1788.30, subdivision (e), rather than including the bona fide error language of section 1692k(c) of Title 15 of the United States Code,” the Appeals Court wrote.
