A District Court judge in California has dismissed crossclaims filed against each other by three defendants which each blamed one of the other defendants for attempting to collect from a deployed active duty member of the United States Air Force, ruling that dismissal of the underlying suit renders the crossclaims moot.
The Background: The plaintiff, before entering military service, incurred a debt as a result of an automobile accident. He stopped making payments on the debt to the insurance company and went into default, but by that time had signed up for the Air Force and been deployed. The insurance company placed the account with a collection agency, which retained a collection lawyer to file a lawsuit against the plaintiff, not knowing he was an active duty service member.
- The plaintiff never learned of the underlying collection suit and a default judgment was entered against him.
- When he learned of the suit, the plaintiff filed his own suit, accusing the defendants of violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and state law in California.
- When they learned the plaintiff was an active duty servicemember, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the default judgment.
- The defendants were able to get the suit filed by the plaintiff dismissed, but had filed crossclaims against each other, asserting that someone else was liable for the mistake in the first place.
The Ruling: The insurance company filed claims against both the agency and the attorney, while the agency filed a claim against the attorney, too.
- Ultimately, because the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed and none of the defendants were found to be liable for anything, their claims against each other were moot, ruled Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the District Court for the Eastern District of California.
