(a)Any debt collector who violates this title with respect to any debtor shall be liable to that debtor only in an individual action, and his liability therein to that debtor shall be in an amount equal to the sum of any actual damages sustained by the debtor as a result of the violation.
(b)Any debt collector who willfully and knowingly violates this title with respect to any debtor shall, in addition to actual damages sustained by the debtor as a result of the violation, also be liable to the debtor only in an individual action, and his additional liability therein to that debtor
shall be for a penalty in such amount as the court may allow, which shall not be less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(c)In the case of any action to enforce any liability under this title, the prevailing party shall be entitled to costs of the action. Reasonable attorney’s fees, which shall be based on time necessarily expended to enforce the liability, shall be awarded to a prevailing debtor; reasonable attorney’s fees may be awarded to a prevailing creditor upon a finding by the court that the debtor’s prosecution or defense of the action was not in good faith.
(d)A debt collector shall have no civil liability under this title if, within 15 days either after discovering a violation which is able to be cured, or after the receipt of a written notice of such violation, the debt collector notifies the debtor of the violation, and
makes whatever adjustments or corrections are necessary to cure the violation with respect to the debtor.
(e)A debt collector shall have no civil liability to which such debt collector might otherwise be subject for a violation of this title, if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation.
(f)Any action under this section may be brought in any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction in an individual capacity only, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.
(g)Any intentional violation of the provisions of this title by the debtor may be raised as a defense by the debt collector, if such violation is pertinent or relevant to any claim
or action brought against the debt collector by or on behalf of the debtor.
Notes of Decisions
Davis v. Hollins Law (2014)
caed · cites it 3×
“” Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.30. 3 Courts determining awarding attorney’s fees under the Rosenthal Act also employ the lodestar method.”
Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass'n. v. Carson (2016)
calctapp
“), which holds a debt collector liable to a debtor for violating the debt collection practices act (Civ. Code, § 1788.30). 9 The Carsons do not raise on appeal the trial court’s methodology or computation of time spent on the case.”
Varnado v. Midland Funding LLC (2014)
cand · cites it 4×
“§ 1692k (identifying remedies available under FDCPA); Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788.30 (listing remedies available for violations of the Rosenthal Act) and *993 1788.”
Palmer v. Stassinos (2006)
cand · cites it 3×
“See Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.30(a) (“Any debt collector who violates [the Rosenthal Act] with respect to any debtor shall be liable to that debtor only in an individual action.”
Bigsby v. Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc. (2018)
ilsd · cites it 2×
“" Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30 (f). The plaintiffs allege that the "fee shifting scheme" and the "inflated fees scheme" violated the California debt collection law.”
Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006)
calctapp
“2d 448 ] [Civ. Code, § 1788.30].) Although we recognize that courts have frequently adhered to the general rule of nonapportionment if claims are overlapping, we are not bound by these decisions because they concern different attorney fee statutes.”
Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (2006)
calctapp · cites it 2×
“(Civ. Code, § 1788.30, subd. (c).) B. The CLRA Claims Appellants seek injunctive relief and damages pursuant to the CLRA (Civ.”
Marseglia v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (2010)
casd · cites it 2×
“(citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30 (b)) (“... in addition to actual damages sustained by the debtor as a result of a violation [any debt collector shall] also be liable to the debtor only in an individual action, and his additional liability therein to that debtor shall be for a…”
Landry v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Landry) (2013)
caeb · cites it 3×
“(A) A prevailing debtor-complainant would be entitled to attorneys fees, while a prevailing collector-defendant would be granted attorneys fees only if the action is adjudged to have been *565 prosecuted or defended in bad faith (Civil Code Section 1788.30(c)). (B) Violation of…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1788.30(a) — 3 cases
Palmer v. Stassinos (2006)
cand
“See Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.30(a) (“Any debt collector who violates [the Rosenthal Act] with respect to any debtor shall be liable to that debtor only in an individual action.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1788.30(b) — 10 cases
Davis v. Hollins Law (2014)
caed
“” Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.30. 3 Courts determining awarding attorney’s fees under the Rosenthal Act also employ the lodestar method.”
Marseglia v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (2010)
casd
“(citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30 (b)) (“... in addition to actual damages sustained by the debtor as a result of a violation [any debt collector shall] also be liable to the debtor only in an individual action, and his additional liability therein to that debtor shall be for a…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1788.30(c) — 1 case
Landry v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Landry) (2013)
caeb
“(A) A prevailing debtor-complainant would be entitled to attorneys fees, while a prevailing collector-defendant would be granted attorneys fees only if the action is adjudged to have been *565 prosecuted or defended in bad faith (Civil Code Section 1788.30(c)). (B) Violation of…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1788.30(d) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 1788.30(e) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 1788.30(f) — 7 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 1788.30(g) — 1 case
Landry v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Landry) (2013)
caeb
“(A) A prevailing debtor-complainant would be entitled to attorneys fees, while a prevailing collector-defendant would be granted attorneys fees only if the action is adjudged to have been *565 prosecuted or defended in bad faith (Civil Code Section 1788.30(c)). (B) Violation of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.