Podcast
Questions and Answers
What was the outcome of the appeals court ruling in the case of Kacie Lynn Young against Midland Funding and MCM?
What was the outcome of the appeals court ruling in the case of Kacie Lynn Young against Midland Funding and MCM?
What was the amount of the delinquent credit account that led to the default judgment against Kacie Lynn Young?
What was the amount of the delinquent credit account that led to the default judgment against Kacie Lynn Young?
What did Kacie Lynn Young allege against Midland Funding and MCM in the lawsuit?
What did Kacie Lynn Young allege against Midland Funding and MCM in the lawsuit?
What is the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
What is the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the anti-SLAPP statute?
What is the anti-SLAPP statute?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the trial court's decision in the case of Kacie Lynn Young against Midland Funding and MCM?
What was the trial court's decision in the case of Kacie Lynn Young against Midland Funding and MCM?
Signup and view all the answers
What did the appeals court conclude with regard to Kacie Lynn Young's Rosenthal Act cause of action?
What did the appeals court conclude with regard to Kacie Lynn Young's Rosenthal Act cause of action?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
Appeals court rules in favor of Kacie Lynn Young, who alleged that Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. falsely represented substituted service of process on her in a debt collection lawsuit, leading to a default judgment against her for a delinquent credit account of $8,529.93. Young brought equitable causes of action for vacatur of the default judgment and a cause of action for damages under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act). Midland Funding and MCM each responded with a motion to strike all of Young’s causes of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the Midland parties’ anti-SLAPP motions on the ground Young did not show she would probably prevail on the merits of her claims, entered judgment in their favor and awarded them attorney fees and costs in an amount to be later determined. Young appeals from the judgment and from the trial court’s later order staying a motion by the Midland parties for $78,635.14 in attorney fees and costs pending the outcome of our review. In the published portion of this opinion, the appeals court concludes Young showed she would probably prevail on the merits of her Rosenthal Act cause of action. The court rejects the Midland parties’ contentions that Young was required to show they knowingly made the false representation of substituted service, and that her Rosenthal Act cause of action was time-barred. The Midland parties also failed to bear their initial burden for their request to strike Young’s “derivative claims” under Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384. The appeals court did not address Midland Funding’s alternative and indirect request to strike discrete allegations within Young’s Rosenthal Act cause of action.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
Test your legal knowledge with this quiz on a recent appeals court ruling in a debt collection lawsuit. Learn about the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the anti-SLAPP statute. Challenge yourself to understand the court's decision and the arguments made by both parties involved in the case.
