A California Appeals Court has reversed the dismissal of a suit against a collection operation that was sued for violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it renewed a judgment in which the plaintiff claims never to have been served with a summons or complaint for the original lawsuit, which dates back to 2006.
The background: The original case began in 2006, when a debt buyer obtained a default judgment against the plaintiff. The proof of service filed at the time stated that the summons and complaint were delivered to a “co-occupant” at a California address. After no response, the court entered a default judgment.
- Years later, the judgment was assigned to the defendant, which sought to renew it.
- The plaintiff, who said he first learned of the judgment in 2022, argued he was never served at the Hayward address, noting that during that period he was homeless and only occasionally stayed at the residence where substitute service was attempted.
- After his attempt to vacate the judgment was denied, he then filed suit seeking to set aside the judgment and alleging violations of the Rosenthal Act, asserting the company attempted to collect on a debt through judicial proceedings despite knowing service was defective.
- The trial court struck his complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, finding his uncorroborated declaration insufficient evidence to support his claims and reasoning that he had admitted owing the underlying debt.
The ruling: The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s ruling, finding the trial court improperly weighed evidence at the anti-SLAPP stage.
- “In ruling on a motion to strike, the trial court does not weigh evidence or determine questions of credibility; instead, the court accepts as true all of the evidence favorable to the plaintiff,” the panel wrote.
- The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s declaration denying he ever lived at the address where service occurred was enough to establish minimal merit.
- It also rejected the trial court’s reasoning that a meritorious defense to the debt was required, citing due process protections that void default judgments entered without proper service.
- As the opinion noted, “due process does not permit a state to require parties not properly served to show a meritorious defense in the underlying action before they can have their default judgments vacated.”
