Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Miguel Angel Munoz v. R.M. Galicia, Inc.
Case Number: 1:22-cv-00842
Judge: Anthony W. Ishii
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno County)
Defendant's Attorney: Brian D. Roth, Debbie P. Kirkpatrick, James Kevin Schultz, Kenneth Akira Ohashi
Description: Fresno, California consumer law lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation under 15 U.S.C. 1692.
"There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy." 42 U.S.C. 1692
Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt.
(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antemeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location;
(2) if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer; or
(3) at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication.
Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.