Test Your Legal Knowledge

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.