ENDORSED

If John Miller
3053 Fillmore St. Suite 245
.c.urtno &T
21 San Francisco, CA 94123
Tel: (415) 93341269 N(JV i 62015
3 Fax: (415) 874-1992
Email: hn;eb1erdn..esern CLERK OF THE COURT
uep-w uerk
Defendant In Propria Persona

Alessandria Fonseca
6 822 North Point St.
San Francisco, CA 94109
Tel: (415) 933-0270

Defendant In Propria Persona

H SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LIMITED JURISDICTION -

II Chung Cheng Kao ) Case No, CUD45-653742

12 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOFICE
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
13 v, ) RECONSIDERATION
)
14 John Miller, Alessandria Fonseca. and.
Does 1-50 ) Date: December 10
th
2015
1.5 Time: 9:30 asn,
Defendants. ) Location: Dept. 501
16 Judge: Hon. Ronald P. Qu.idachay

17
18 PLEASE TA.KE NOTICE that on the date and. time noted above, Defendants John

19 Mi.1.Ier and Aiessa.ndria Fonseca will request that this Court take mandatory ju.dicial notice of

2.. 0 the following documents in support of thei.r Moti.on for Reconsideration as follows:

Fxhfbit B United States Code Annotated

-
- 1- USC 1692e(11.) -

-.7 the fb.tlowi.ng conduct i.s a violation of th.i.s section: The fai..iu.re to disc!-.ose i.n. the initial

a otten com.m on i.c:a ti c,n a ith the cons u men.., tt.) at t:h.e c1 ebt cc) 1 ec:tor [p pting to

74 cot iect a debt: a:n that iris cnto,rmationc,btamed i be used tor that nu.rpose, a.nci t.he
,1 S failure tc discl.ost i.sud :eque.nt c omrn.munications that the cotnrnu.n.ccation is tron) a.

7 R - I it-
 P 2. Exhibit C Federal Case Law re: Exhibit B
- -

2 FmancL. American Credit Exchang. 870 F.2d 805 (2 Cir. 1989).

3 3. Exhibit D Federal Case Law -

4 Fi2iflC1Yr Heiherger & Associates 988 F.Supp.712 (S.D.N.Y, 1997) -

5 ErnaHeireAMQciak 988 F.Supp. 715 (S.DNX. 1998)

6 4, Exhibit F- Federal Case Law

7 av.HibererAiat 163 FM 111 (2 Cir. 1998)

9 Dated: November 13!1 2015. Respectftil!v submitted,

ii
ii John Miller Defendant In Propria Persona
I -

12

13 Dated: November 13th 2015. Respectfully submitted,

14

15 Alessandria Fonseca
Defendant In Propria Persona
16

1 8 1.1

J
141
 UNITED
STATES
CODE
ANNOTATED
TITLE 15
Commerce and Trade

1691 to 1700

Comprising All Laws of a General

and Permanent Nature
Under Arrangement of the Official Code of
the Laws of the United States
with
Annotations from Federal Courts

WESt
A Thomson Asuters busntss

Mat 4O7tTh82
Lb. 41 CONSUMER CREDIT 15 1b92e

made within fi e days, ever intended to
tecomniend luga) act on aaa;nst debtor,
precluding sumniarv udgmcnt on clatm
Uiat agency violated Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by threatening to take ac
tion not intended to he taken. Jeter so
Credit Bureau, Inc CAll Ga. 1985.
ThO F.2d II 68 Fed era! Gird Procedure
2394.5
Evidence that debt collection agency
had made at least 90 telephone calls to
consumers residence in effort to collect
debt, and that some rails had been of a
threatening nature, raised tact issue as tr
whether agencys conduct qualified as
malicious, oppressive or fraudulent, pro.
chiding summary judgment as to claim
for punitive damages in consumers intrri
sion.upon-seclusion action against agen
cy, Fausto so Credigy Services Corp.
ND;CaL2009, 598 F.Supp.2d 1049. Fed
eralCivil Procedure 2515
fflp issue of material fact as to
whether debt collection agency mistaken
ly called consumers several times, con
SUflfl demanded tails to cease and
tails dad not cease precluded summary
judgment in consumers action agnmst
agency for violations of Fair Debt Collec
bow Practices Act (FDCPA), Kerwin v,
Remittance Assistance Corp., D.Nev.
2
0LS59 0
FSupp 2d ll7 edera Ctvil
Procedure 2494 5
Material issue of ac c is ed as o
whether debt collection agency re-report
ed disputed account to credit reporting
agemk,s preclading ummar judgmen
turjqency on purported dcbtor s claim
lJfluer Provisioi 0 1- ur Dct Colkrtio
rnctices Act FDCP4: 1 pr-hibinr debt
a Ir: action agatnst debt collector br vie.-
cOUectm front enearine in cond et the
Zattwaj causeq ienJ w vas a ti
and harasstng phone calls in ittenipt to
collect debt, recluded citrv at ,urninarv
udgntent on consumers resultinu damn,
under the Fatr Debt Caiiecton Practeei,
Act (FOCRA), Akaiwadi e, Risk Manage
ment Alternatives, Inc., D.Md.2004, 336
F Spp.2d 492. Federal. Cliii Procedure
1494.5
Genmi issue ci rnatcrial tact cxizrdi
as to whether debt collection agencys:
automated phone calls, which neither
stated party to whom call was directed
nor disclosed callers tdentirv. iere nart
of pattern of harassing calls allegedly re
ceived by debtor, precluding summary
judgment for agency in debtors action
under Californias Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Joseph v. J.J. Mac lnrvre Companies,
L.L.C., N.D.CaL2003, 281 F.Supp.2d
I ISo. Federal Civil Procedure 2494,5
Material issues of fact existed as to
whether debt collection agency engaged
in actionable harassment or annoyance
when, over 19-month period, it made
nearly 200 calls to debtor, who was phys
ically disabled senior citizen, and, on
some days. made multiple calls after
debtor requested that no further calls be
made, precluding summary judgment for
agency on debtors claims that agencys
repeated calls violated federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
Californias Rosenthal Fair Debt Collec
tion Practices Act. Joseph v. J.J. Mac
lnwre Companies, L.L.C., N.D.Cal.2002,
238 F.Supp.2d 1158. Federal Civil Pro
cedure 2494.5
of this subchapter. summar:
-

rnertt for either rarty was precluded by-

:Hopprms, or abuse person in connec issue of whether defendants employees
tOti With del- or 1k cn Ne on v statements to debtor ciolared this sib-
Syr,..Hnr: I IC
J Cat. - - -. -

::rophisticuatesi iicriei
:.

-
ito cc trial Jetem riamit toss. r. trio: 55
55. rca.a at ,ard bu.mc-.a rather than debt collector
rngwl1h
0
J a rr r t. t
c-g Wriarher. Credit Screws of Genrgia, Inc..
flSUfler o- . a - t4i)rtaTc.OC 5 P5l;r:r 59!. on Os:.
:.

oiD..aku. -, . -

reprcseniations

4. u:.:icrto. rmi5t_ .55. :;0 ticstcz:t.,.c a it

5 ) 9bc S I I Ca cam to It c Cc. cUr, 01 uS

135
 F

COMMERCE AND TRADE

15 1692e
lication of the foregoup-
debt. Without limiting the general app
tion
following conduct is a iolation of this sec
that the de
(1) The False representation or implication
ated with the Ui
lector is vouched for, bonded by, or affili
any badge, unifoj$
States or any State, including the use of
facsimile thereof
(2) The false representation of
(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any del
ch
(B) any services rendered or compensation whi
lawfully received by any debt collector for the collectjoj
debt,
tion that any 1:
(3) The False representation or implica
is from an a
is an attorney or that any communication
ment 6.
(4) The representation or implication that nonpay
nment of any pers
debt will result in the arrest or impriso
of any propez
the seizure, garnisbment, attachment, or sale
lawful and the
wages of any person unless such action is
on
collector or creditor intends to take such acti
cannot legally be
(5) The threat to take any action that
or that is not intended to be taken.
a sale, ref
(6) The false representation or implication that
shall causE
4
or other transfer of any interest in a debt
consumer to
ent of the debt;:r
(A) lose any claim or defense to paym
by tliih
(B) become subiect to any practice prohibited
subchapter
non that the consum
(7) I he False representation or inpitca o iisgrace the
crrnrmtted an cr-ne or othtr conduct a order t
4
cUP5rnet
( 1
r. r ,t--4.w
,,nC
5 r Lt) L-UIs .tLUi UaL dEl..
tw) L.-u.LiL&a

pcmr dt .qtnrrm.tion wkic is kro

h m or hich should be
cc:mrnunlcwe that
icon vn to be loIre, i.ncluding toe ta.ilure to
disputed debt is disputec.
rureY-, cnirunuiiic.atiufl
(9) The use or dissniftitton of any
.

C
ial, or agency
authorized, is.siied, or approved dv atpj cc ru-t, offic
h :rraLe4a false
of the (Jolted States cc aDs State, orwttic
approvaL
nupression as to its source, authorization, or
The in iSu: vs p StSs ni at a c. i-
I
. .

nbtatn joint iatioi

collect or attem t to collect any debt o rt.o
ci, ncernhri a consumer.
written cornmunica
(11) The failure to disclose in the initial
two with tre consume-v and,
in ac!diti 00. 0 tfl nit a c0mtnur
C1z 41 CONSUMER CREDiT 15 1692e

cation with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communica

tion. that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and
that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and
the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the
communication is from a debt collector, except that this para
graph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection
with a legal action.
(12) The false representation or implication that accounts
have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value.
(13) The false representation or implication that documents
are legal process.
(14) The use of any business, company, or organization name
other than the true name of the debt collectors business, compa
ny, or organization.
(15) The false representation or implication that documents
are not legal process forms or do not require action by the
consumer.
H
(16) The false representation or implication that a debt collec
tor operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as
deftned by section 1681 a(S) of this title.
(Pub,L 90321, Title VIII. 807, as added Pub.L. 95109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91
Stat 877, and amended Pub.L. 104208, Title II, 2305(a), Sept. 30, 1996,
110 Stat. 3009425.)

HISTORIC4L AND STATUTORY NOTES

Re Notes and Legislative Reports in all communications made to collect a
1968 Acts, House Report No. 1040 and debt or to obtain information about a
ConJerce Report No. 1397; see 1968 consumer, dat the debt collector is at
U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News. p. tempting to collect a debt and that any
1962. information obtained will be used for that
1977 Acts Senate Report No 95382 punpose
:j977
US. Code Cong.. and Ada
Newi. 1695. Effective and Applicability Provbions
1996 kcts Sector TshSb sr P
19% Astxendmeng Par. tj). Pest, 104-205 provtded that: The amer;dmarnr
0420i, 2305(a), amended par. (IN made by subsection (a) [ansendi.ng par.
Perally. Prior to amendment, par. (11 (It) of this eion shall take effect 90
read as follows: Except ass otherwise doec after the date of enactment of sit is
PrOsided her t ar C 6 o -

0 ;,,,c...
Ocatio fleer teat
tide, the failure to disclose deane enactmerst [Sept. 30, 1996j1

LAW REVIEW AN I) )O!YRN4L COMMENTARIES

t
Acceter,ee,. cc::. ca-road Jr reasso O- trier: :.:c:: FL seeP: user. 4/
58 t1993.

i.J13RARY REFERENCES
Re Id are
. 5
Trace R ..:Jatlot: 02
Key Niarnbr System T:apic No. 1 Of
137
 rn n a w-,.. . - -
a 9 8. 8. 4 te *

I C.)C
c,
C , 4.
zz a t-J
z
F F
tz- CC
C - S
f-1( r 2..$-
CM a
Cr
C -,
C-C C-
C
,. 0 Cc CC
a j-
2(- CF
2!!s C.. CC- - -C
z
S r (3
cft CM (C C- r C
DC i (C
C r s-S3: r (C C
-
c cu39 -1 ._: ./
t ,..r. -
DC 2 CM CM
4 &p..
M
CC-
, C C- C4
CC C
C3t (-C
n
>
e tc_ C_ c ---z
3sSCF r C - V C.
CM C
Zt C- CCL
-S 2
2 CM CC CC
I., , - C.

-I
n
44 CI
C
-
a
5 .n ft
C C J C- S
-:1
C CD
-
.C-: -EE 1
C Ca C C-C r
C r-r n -s S CC
Zr 2> t,Zc / 3
ra.st C CC t
C
Ths
Cr...
F
2 :1 H.
n n r w ;s CM c...
- 2C

3
Zr
34% -Q , s cr sE C
- V u4-
D- - E-- - C (C F?
CC S...
I zcC
S
3 5 dC -4-C-
FF CCC.. , -..z.... C
- C, C- c;rt- r C
2 CC? -C 4
j- -5e-- 5 CC
CC CC
S C- C z

C 4 C 3
- CC.
ftg CC r CC ?
22 5 5. E2C
z
r $3
C.
2 4..
5 (C 5
; C
$ :0 7
C
- C -
C - .
-, (C
ir 4
C- 5 u-I
C rt 4 2 D, C
3D C SC
3CC- C.
-t -
.. C
CM - _Cr C-DC.
3 s- :, z <-F
V.
C
CC 3_I

S F 53?
a.
C r N
.1 C

-4.- Ct 2c, 2 c 7
SIC rCC - r C 5
CCC
Er 2

ft5

,q

-
 15 1692e COMMERCE AND TRADE

Costs and charges, amount of debt 24 Unintended actions, threats ii

Credit bureau reports, threats 8 Unsophisticated consumer
Credit reporting, misleading statements Unspecified future actions,
13 Weight and sufficiency of
Deceptive practices 13
Definitions 3
Demanding payment from wrong Individ 1. ConstructIon
uals 29 The Fair Debt Collection
Disclose attempt to collect debt 28 (FDCPA) applies only to debt
<I Dismissal of claims 40 Neff v. Capital Acquisitions &
Disputed debts 21 merit Co., C.A.7 (IlL) 2003, 352.
Dunning letters 30 1118 Consumer Potccnon
Employer contacts, threats 9
Failure to disclose attempt to collect debt Doctrine of legislative
28 not incorporate into Fatr Dtbt
s-I
Garnishment, attachment, execution or Practices Act (FDCPA) a Federal

foreclosure, misleading statements 16 CommiFsion (FTC) opinion or Cotj j

Government action, misleading state- Appeals decision, where Cones
j*
nients 17 repealed attorney exempt on

Identification of collector, misleading FDCPA and did not reenact

statements 18 Dutton v, Wolpoff and Abramso
Identification of creditor, misleading (Dcl.) 1993, 5 F.3d 649 Stat
statements 19 223.5(1); Statutes c 223.Sio)
Immunity 38
Initial communIcations 27 ny false, rntsleadsng or 1-
Interest, amount of debt 25 esentations regarding the pa (
Jeopardy of account 4 qutred to reinstate mortgage in
Knowledge or Intent 44 U ansmison from debt collector
Least sophisticated consumer standard aumers attorney were not acti
33 der the Fair Deot Collection Pra
Legal proceedings, threats 10 FDCPAI a-inch prohibtts only 1a1s4
Legal status of debt 26 leading or deceptre representad
LImitations 39 consumers, not their attorneys. I
Litigation representation, misleading Shapiro C D 1112004 330 PSi
statements 20 1 J02 nt rrut 1nd Trade Regulation.t
Mass mailing 31
Misleading statements 14-20
Generally 14 Faist. decepuse or tnislearnngpr$
Credit reportIng 15 tces specificaily prohibited by the ta
Garnishment, attachment, execution Debt C Ileceon Practkes Act are nondo.
or foreclosure 16 2 o - .
c
e
1 /
:Iaimd
Gocenarnent action 17
ider,ttficaticn ot coliecto-r 18
(den clfica.tion of cred.itor 19 21 CL t jJ 2ilec on Cors E.DNt
LitlgarIon representation 20 oa5 32 F Sjpp 4n1 knitnist knit
Persons eri:tltied to maintaIn action 36 Je 1tu
2
t
a 4 nnnnitkttd
,

consumer standard 34
Report. to credit P. eun thrc-acr 8
t --4

Serdeme:nt or coepromSe
45 2
c g .c
Status oi collector 3 0
pta nd dccrp
Sufficiency of complaint 37
s -e in -

tLcs ciOti. dent P no ad

Snmmarv Judgment 41
ci. (
2
t 27 _

LI?

{ 21 -P.
9
-

Emp lover contacts

A. i. i. 2nV
l1.i.
c
Legal proceedings 10
Unintended actions Ii 0 11 I LF \DC 20
12 a i 7 RetaIl
Unspecified future :1,t!flns
mater
.C
acconts 32
 15 1692e COMMERCE AND [RIDE ch.
Note 27
I P\. n 1 ii
hi,it
:
would be treated as one communication ., I(

under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ,ttLcn! , i .t

,.
_... tlrs
ii
tFDCPA), and thus, debt collector did not I : t siit(ituTi ,Hjiii tar,
J
violate provision of FDCPA requiring .LtiI tlcOt i1,tctor IL.ifltC in
it
cornrnunicauons to consumer to included I e flu, ma t ei it a rid t L.,ii med with .

statement disclosing debt collectors pur n Ins LiL:i U IM. \MOl NT

vol
pose and use to which any information .1 td:e.njt
Dikei
obtained in process will be put, where i . Saiit:aL l,dLau IS liL.
letter itself contained required warning I 1 )96, . I F d 149 \ntitnlst%L
even though summons and complaint did I rude P golan :0 214

not, Wiener v. Bloomfield, S.D.N.Y. Falr thi t out, :nn Pracfte;

1995, 901 FSupp. 771. Antitrust And TM P . tp .!r.z-w, sc cht coileq
Trade Regulation 214 lers ,It It that our %
of .

Notice sent by creditors attorney to .atwn IS t cotlect drht AdS flot vial
was deceptive means to collect j, !flfl)-, 113 ,c ttlcnlcnt etter 1
ro
debtors ,

debt in violation of Fair Debt Collection IlL ti at reLt: d - nair uiai debtaa
Practices Act; notice was included with t ,t ,t c .:; tot mont
copies of summonses and complaints in .j?tttt,t ti::., .r:.;is

actions against debtors and cautioned r.r at t Dutton . Wolpoft jj

against filing [or bankruptcy, notice was \orant,on, C A Del ) I N3 .5
clearly attempt to communicate to debt tin: \i. d rrach R,cdatn 214
ors regarding collection of debts and ap It: it U ,:rezo dsJo
peared to be authorized, issued, or ap ctt .He:n f it in .torrn4tj
proved by court and therefore created a,ncd \%ouldtlStd I .Ilect debt
false impression as to its source, authori ,,,;ed Pa:, fl: ut C Practices k4 ,diet on

zation. or approval and falsely implied n Ohi lect sent ieft a$ ,

that it was part of legal process. Tolenti I judgrr.

no v, Friedman? N.D.Ill.1993, 833 u,r \. ii..
F.Supp, 697, affirmed 46 F3d 645, cer mnl,.nca Li, tt C,! tunsamct and
tiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 2613. 515 U.S. ft ,,iIIt Li)! nc ,c!c, nt ii discj
1160. 132 LEd2d 356. Antitrtist And i It 1 tJ:. to recgjv
di . , I

Trade Regulation Sr 214 t - i %tilflQfl.

Forty-eight-hour, Follow-up notice sent
to consumer Liv debt collector was corn - f Lflh CA6
nonicatmoo and violated statute requir ;N ntr:rzstAu1

hg communication to state that debt col

lector was attempting to collect debt and ofthe
that information will he used For that -
.,vtaii
purpose. boone v Credit Bureau of .tate
-
r
- asned.
r Socr -42 1 A.rdtr:is 8zcd franc
olation Sr 214
Debt colocnon agenci.es arreqrri.red
t. .rZ.:...

ntiai core rnun*atotr. S-eaorook

C r
Mr
Or g at

0 flO I or 4_,,

28. Disclose attempt to collect debt

Co I cti I .01 It S

tir.mebiaro.co would housed for tOut

,viuin tr.-teniop n-i dflclostn-o cc-
Ui 41 CON,SIU1-.R CRFD[F 15 1692e
Note 28
-tehir hii ad ii i lent ,i.tt jilt-i 1995, 911 F.Supp. l44O Antitrust And
- is _l,.-t-i t c i_It .!.1 .i: iti;t Trade Regulation 214
iCCt deiF It !.I[. i .it:t ti Ll;. I_)_ Both the lact that attempt to collect
-
I 1 i . - 1 debt is being made and that any informa
cc A I I -. tion. so obtained during c.o.llection proce
._r-ta; au _:
- .. 1 dure will be used for that purpose must
S r:. it a t .- t: I. be clearly stated in notice provided by
rted
:.
1 t%U .t
-\ ci -ri_l debt collector under Fatr Debt Collection
t) till .1
-
1 t c t!\ t,tid. LiIi_ Practices Act (FDCPA). Rabidean v.
I .jI \. a, 1. Management Adjustment Bureau,
tim. hi U t_, - I W.D.N.Y. 1992. 805 FSupp. 1086. Anti
F.Supp.2i - i Ani I; trust And Trade Regulation 214
l{sgulatacn 214 -
Debt collectors letters to consumers
Debter colic. - it - -d:c Fair that did not disclose that they were at
icot C lIt-ti,,:, l t_. -.
. t.flI \ tempts to collect debt and that all infor
::uulretLcnt ,i tlt c) -ii
mation obtained as result would be used
iaat COYTIInUJI,lC..!tIiifl tthL ,t,llec i i7()ifl for that purpose violated mandatory pro
or dunn,z his telephone on; ci -anon .
vision of Fair Debt Collection Practices
with debtor. aithouizii atzenl liJ r;c it c -
Act (FDCPA). Woolfolk v. Van Ru Credit
icitiv tale ll_, hi
1 Cotp, D,ConnJ99O, 783 F.Supp. 124.
214

her iJcanfvr..h.a i_:

Antitrust And Trade Regulation
the .ient -,iawd u:O the tin \ta> Law firms letter to consumer on behalf
calling n regai-d to to ou:tanding at of client violated Fair Debt Collections
cmwts that had seen sent into collections Practices Act by failing to contain lan
:w the uredttor ffo . Nt 0 Fit- at guage warning consumer that informa
yStens IC D \_t Ut.. I tion obtained would be used to collect
F.Supp.1d 43 t:.t : lt,.u Rc ui_
debt. Stojanovski v. Strobl and Manoogi
ulatjon 214 an. P.C., E.D.Mich.1992, 183 F.Supp.
319. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
Debt coflec,-i Lt I uld iii iiiiaV 214
-bon of the I-air Debt t.:et In, F -tt
Act tHY 2 U
lrps .
Attorneys collection letters violated
0 cln -rat .t: .
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by fail
ollect debt, Itt. tk .. a-! :1 :,
ing to disclose that letters were attempts
this effect appe-ired fl d(;

i
to collect debt and that all information
on !:- .ttIh ..iLrfl, -rn would be used for that purpose and by
zrlslyrejcfl.td overstating amount of debt; attorney
r bDptrt- - - - - , - made no attempt to show by preponder
atwqs . . 1 -- ance of evidence that overstatement of
amount was unintentional and resulted
.

d-: - - -- - :.
d. DC..!,, - . - . F - [son bona tide error notwithstanding
-- . . -. - -- . - - -- procedures reasonably adarte-d to avo,d
error. Cacace a Lucas, D.Conn.1990,
:m Pthupp. 502. Antitrust And Trade
Regulation 2 l.6
.,t-iJ.
Disciostare retraced be Fats Dab;
- - Collection Practice-c Act that debt malIce
..Jt tot is attempting to collect debt and ear
inlortnation outameci will be used Oar that
C
was satisfactorily made by debt
oilectord n,fSee cul.icat:r.cm that it mccc.

a

- ttam :1. cottticO so use

all approved means at: its command to
uol.lect debt, and that a.ny inforsnatiop it
obtained could be used as basis to en-

cue 0:4 ,
n m e.cu tm4 or: a cDt at a
and extraneous intimidating languagha
171
 1

COMMERCE AND TRADE

15 1692e CON
Note 26
29. DemandIng payment 1
Gaetano v. Payco of Wisconsin. Into, indiv idua ls
ot
F13t-FA bar a
DConnJ99O, 774 F,Su pp. 140$ . Anti -
trust And Trade Regulation 214 - g nnulate
dem and for tL.d C aiauajwj -

Debt collection agencys ot

immediate payment in letter sent to debt egdter
-
a FL
ar
told -

or did not gros sly over shad ow agen cys

recitation of statutorily required warning I) PA.
1 rtan g ii
nba
that letter was for collection of debt. and any-
--
,t
.Y
Smith v, Financial Collection Agencies, p 4
-

s Aridji
DDeLI99I, 770 RSu pp. 232. Anti trust PSi ._

,, ot eaDre
-4
And Trade Regulation 214 U, O

d t oject.
Language of all debt collection letters L t ent Tnns it

not just lang uage of lette r h. vu

together, and -

containing particular notice are consid

fl till
ered in addressing alleg ation s that col 15 ,c
4 ., V Cej flj -

lector violated Fair Debt Coll ectio n - ttca L r. -

Practices Act by over shad owin g requ ired she ts egall r.

notices that information obtained will be n

used for purposes of collecting debt. -r i hI I a e -ate 4

c-

Anthes v, Tran swor ld Syst ems, mc, in -

D.DeL199I, 765 F.Supp. 162 Antitrust Duo - o ha -Delh ,n w: h

And Trad e Regu latio n 214 p -0 n An
fl
Collection agency did not violate Fair a o opniscaedc
-

Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to

dhsciose it was attempting to collect debt LO u-J;f3bLH-mn a-d wtb

and that any information obta ined wou ld ub roboirt alsel Pt

be used for that purp ose, as any failu re to to or -c at ... U ,orl - -

durin g com mu yd- - Lid R4 ni

make requ ired discl osur e kenl
nications with alleged debto-rs was bona
Dde error; clerical errors and misstate bl cain as - Ar
ments of -this kind were khnd s of vio la -

tions of Act for which bona fide error - -ass I oao Pe -

defense was ;ntended. Beater v. DM.

Collections, Inc. DDeLld9l, 754 -41 rp3SJ lG- 1

F.Supp. 383. Anti tnast And . Trad e Reg u - 6

lation 216
U-,
Letter sent by collection agency tc debt
or id not comoly with disclosure re re -

quirements of Fair Debt Collection Prac

-

tic-es Act by failing to include lano unge in -

-
t , --

letter to ebb-cr that any .infor;narion ob

-.

I- --
tained wou.Id be used for nor-poses of debt
-

collection. rotwiths;ardir-,g that jotter .:iid

not reouest sos in,fc:rmanon from debtor.
Seabroo-k v. On-ondaga Bitt-can of Medical -

a D\
5 4) Y --

OSepe 81 t-r-rr-.- Ar,d frado Fertile..

i-i
to 9 4

Lrta;n no.atr co;tecn-on agene-cio u1t+ror

L i it; ha it w aso tote t iii a. Z
-

a; t - hej-
latch Fair Debt Coilcction Fracriccs Ac;.
to- indicwz that itttc;-sca,$
:;.t?itea

it cc it- :tO I.e t I - n sc .- it v ii

. .: .; ..
It) .
t
coiIcs. 5 to (tr,;ca Adios; t
Pi
y
titer:; r Bert-so Inc.. DJcx.ibbd. ad)
Ito too- 37D, atfirmcd as modified o.m;
orh- l.A
r1c :rsi :;:.- :;:.s s-cs i:..i
or grounds 828 F

Tcada ftctumat;oa 214

I.
 ci)
V
2 UJ kU
$
3 C

SD
4
0
I
C
] I 00
C
U- LU -
L U
LU LU
 IVeStE
-Inn
f LDLRAL
-r-
R]ipowrER
Secon.d Series

A Unit of th.t Vaijona.1 fter,orter otstem

Volume 870 F,2d

cases Argued and Determined

in the

LS
UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEA
AND
OF APPEALS
TEMPORARY EMERGENCY COURT

ST PALL, MlNN

WEST PUBLISHING CO.

1989
 EXCHANGE 805
EMANUEL v. AMERICAN CREDIT 19891
Ch, it, Ste tOld 805 (2nd Ctr.
the
H 1989). Here. the Fredkins must pay
royalty whether or not they
argu minimum
[3) The Fredkins make a second onds: that is to san. they
on a diffe rent regu latio n that produce diam
ment based
regu latio n must pay it even if they do nodelay
renta ls. The
defines delay production. And they may recoui these
says that payments out of future production. These
for the
A delay rental is an amount paid facts, along with the contracts character
deve lopm ent, of the
privilege of defe rring
been ization of the payment as a minimum con
coul d have
property and which
, or alto payment, would seem sufficient
ent of the lease
avoided by abandonm fication for the Tax Courts eon--
a record justi
by commencement of development oper elusion,
tions, or by obtaining production. The udgmenr of the sax Court is
Section 1,6123(c) of the Treasury Regula
. Affirthed,
tions on Income Tn (1954 Code) (26 C.F.R)
c
The Internal Revenue Code permits dedu
tion in the year of payment of rentals - -.

required to be made as a condition to the

continued use or possession.. of property
to which the taxpayer has not taken -.

title or in which he has no equity 26

U.S.C. 162(aXS) (1982), The Fredidne
ar
gue that Impe rial in 1977 and 1978 did not Samuel L, EMANUEL,
yet have a property interest in the land PlaintiffAppellant,
that permitted mining; it had only a grant Cross-Appellee,
onds ,
permitting it to prospect for diam
Under these circumstances, the Predkins AMERICAN CREDIT EXCHANGE,
say, their payment of $50,000 per
yeas was,
DelendantAppellee,
in essence, a payment for the privilege of CrossAppellant.
deferring development of the mining prop
ets 8&.-7717, 887757
erty, width fact, they believe, means it is Nos, 534, 666, Dock
a delay rental. United States Court of Appeals,
In our view, how ever , the reco rd does Second Circuit,
not demonstrate the existence of a delay
Argued Jan. 12, 1989.
rental. Treasury Regulation 1,6123(c)
states that a delay rental is a rental paid Decided March 16i 1989.
for the privilege of deferring develop
ment of property and, if the interest 15
developed (if the lessee produces diamonds) Debtor sued debt collection agency un
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
he does not have to pay a delay rental. der the
counterclalmed for malicious
Thus, delay rentals buy time. Set (7am- and agency
ecution. (Cairn and counterclaim were
mueconer it Wisou, 76 rt2d 766, 769 (Stn pros
the United States District
Cir.1931l) (delay rentals accrue by the dismissed by
for the Northern District, of Ne:w
mere lapse of time like any other rent, are Court
Cholakia, J,. and appeal and
not dependent upon the finding or produc York. Con, C,
were taken. The Court of
tionof resources. and are not paid directly cross appeal
. Judge, held that:
or indirectly for [minerals] to be produced, Appeals, Miner, Circuit
to debtor adequately dis
but [are] for additional time in which to (11 letter sent
was a conununicatior to col
utilize the land). And because delay rent closed. that it
required that letter
a.ls buy time, then are not reccupahie by lect a debt; (2) the Act
disclose that ann mrc.rn i.ato-m n orovide.d by
the lessee out of production, as are rotal.t
ld be used to collect the debt,
payments, See A. Bruen, W. Taylor & K. recipient wou
no specific information was
Jensen, Pederu I Income Taxation of (iii even though
not entitled to
and Gas Investments &03[l] at 3B (2d cdi requested; (3) debtor was

to-
C
806 870 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
ow
recover actual or additional damages,
C
but was entitled to costs and attorneys
fees; and (4) debtor was not entitled to
sanctions for agencys filing of counter
c]aim or cross appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed and re
manded in part, and sanctions on appeal
denied,
C 1. Consumer Protection t-rtO
art
trw,
ar-,, Letter to debtor from debt collection
us/C,
so-is
,0 ii agency adequately disclosed that it was a
comniurication to collect a debt, as re
quired by Falr Debt Collection Practices
tiC Act, where letter stated that account had
4,
0
been turned over to agency for immediate
collection and told debtor how and where
to make payment, there was no require
ment that the letter quota verbatim the
language of the statute. Consumer Credit
Protection Act. 807, 807(11), as amend
ed, 15 USCA. 8* 1692e. 1692e411).
0 2. Consumer Protection ZlO
f/C,
Debt collector sending a collection let
thu ter to debtor was required by statute to
t7 disclose that any information provided by
the letters recipient would be used to col
tIlt lect the debt, even though no specific Infor
0 MINER, circuit Judge:
V mation was requested. Consumer Credit
Protection Act, { 807. 807(11). as amend
ed, 15 LS.CA. 1692e. 1692eUlP
3. Consumer Protection
t_,, 40
Debtor was not entitled to actual or
additional damages when debt coiiection
aarencv sent him a collection letter without
disclosing test ann Information crovided
would be used to collect the debt, where.
debtor did. not plead or prove that he sot
fAred mw specific loss, an-d no-nconspIiance
was neither frequent, persistent nor int:n
tional, but. debtor was entitled to costs and
attorneys fees. Cons tuner Credit Protec
55 967l11 2-ss (a$2)(A; a
c.. Ii, as amended. 15 1J9CA
P/-u
.1. Federal Clvii Frucedeire
LJSLJLJf- 5chi ,&,r v-u -a/in
Cc,lecticn Practices Act was not entitled
2S
of counterclaims on theory that debtor had
maliciously commenced lawsuit, or on
ground that cross appeal was frivolous,
notwithstanding certain rhetoric which
could be disregarded, as state ton of mali
cious prosecution arguably fell within aneil
lary jurisdiction of the district court and
counterclaims could be considered as factu
ally and legally based claims brought in
good faith to recover costs and attorney
fees for harassment under the Act Fed.
Rules ClivJromRule 11, 28 US,CA; Fit,
A,PSul:e 88, 28 UIC,A; Consumer Credit
Protection Act, 818(aX8), as amehdedl it
US..C,A. 1692k(aXS).
Clifford Forstadt, UAWChrvsler Legal
Sernees Plan. Syracuse, NY. (0. Randolph
Bragg, UAWGM Legal Services Plan,
Newark, DE, of counsel), for plaintiff-ap
pellant, cross-appellee.
Sidney P. Cominsky. Syracuse, NY. Uoel
N. Meinicoff, Syracuse, NY., of counsel),
for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.
Before KAUFMAN, VAN
GRAAFEILAND and MINER, Circu,t
Judges
This is an appeal from a summary judg
ment of the United States District Court
tar toe Nortnern ustrtci- or New YorK
(Choi&kis, 1) dismissing the claim asserted
by plaintiff-appellant Samuel U. Emanuel
under the rair Debt Collection Practices
Act rFICPA or the asts 15 USC
5 Ibi-2--16920 11982 & Supp. IV P986), and
the counterclaims of defendant-appeilee
American Credit Exchange (American
Credit) for malici.ous prosecution. Eman
uel claimed that a letter he received from-
American Credit in connection with a debt
he allegedly owed lila landlord violated 15
UdeC. 1692et1 I because it failed to dis
close that.; it was a cornnsunication rosde to-
- L
2 :-1.-- ss,t rc,
sri nil-set it was no-s n;Eitd to
to- a and trat because no Informs
the letter did not have
 EMANUEL i. AMERICAN CREDIT EXCHANGE
csro rid see 2ndflr. 19R)
to advise Emanuel that an information
obtained would be used. it. seems clea.r to
us. however, that the language of section
1692e(11) requires that a debt. collection
letter disclose that ann information provid
ed by the letters recipient will he used to
collect the debt, even when no specific in
formation is requested. Accordingly, we
reverse the judgment dismissing Emanuels
claim and remand the matter to the district
court tie calculate costs and attorneys fees.
to which Emanuel is entitled under 15
USC. l692k(a3). We affirm the dismiss
al of the counterclaims as well as the denial
of the Rule ii sanctions sought by Ameri
can Credit,
BACKGROUND
American Credit, a debt collection agen
cy. sent Emanuel a letter in January 1987
demanding payment of the sum of $534.49
owed to Tudor Townhouses. The collection
letter stated merely that Emanuels past
due account in the amount of $584.49 had
been referred to the agency for immediate
dollection. and advised Emanuel that to
insure proper credit all payments must be
.rnade to American Credits Syracuse of
fice. The sum demanded represented the
amount allegedly owed by Emanuel to his
idadlord; Tudor Townhouses, for past-due
rent and damage to property,
Eutanueb refused to pay and, on January
20, 1988, commenced this action. alleging a
violation of 15 USA!, 1692e(i 1), in the
:dlniict court. Emanuel claimed that the
letter failed to disclose clearly that it was a
communication to collect a debt and that
any information obtained from Emanuel
would to collect that debt. Emanu
d sought statutory damages of $1,0i,
Costs and reasonable attorneys fee.s, See
15 USA!. 1692k, American Credit coun
.:.la.a,co citing the willful, malicious and
nature of Emanuels suit and
seeking $10,000 damages. $80,000 in tre
bin unitive damages, costs, and mason-
able attorneys fees.
Emanuel moved to dismiss the counter
daiwa pursuant tie Fed,RCiv,P, l2ibl(6 or,
alternativy, for summary judgment pur
duant to Fed,R,CftnP. 56(bi dismissing the
807
counterclaims. Emanuel also moved for
sbmmary judgment. on the claim set forth
n the complaint. in addition, he sought
Rule 11 sanctions, contending that Ameri
can Credit was guilty of bad faith in filing
its answer and counte-rclairrs. See Fed.R.
CivY, 11, American Credit cross-moved to
dismiss the complaint and for summary
judgment on its malicious prosecution
claims. In addition. American Credit
sought attorneys fees pursuant to 15
USA!. 1692k(a)(3) and FedRCiv,P, 56(g),
costs, a contempt order pursuant to Fe&R,
Civ.P, 56(g;, and conupensatoi-v and puni
tive damages for the intentional com
mencement of a frivolous and worthless
lawsuit, maliciously commenced.
The district court granted summary
judgment dismissing the complaint and the
counterclaims; it denied all other relief
sought by the parties. Ruling from the
bench, the court noted that the letter clear
collect
ly revealed the senders intention to
a debt. it observed also that, becaus e the
letter sought no information concer ning the
debt, section 1692es reguirement that the
letter disclose that any information provid
ed would be used for purposes of collecting
the debt did not apply. In concluding Em
anuels claim was without merit, the
court held that the statute was not intend
ed to cover a situation such as the one that
is currently before the Court and it surely
was not intended.., to place a sword in
thehandsofadebtcr, itwasintendedto
give him a shield againet false, deceptive or
misleading representation. The determi
nation to dismiss American Credits mali
cious urosecution counterclaims was based
on a finding that there has beer no deci
sions di. ctly on point interpreting the see
ti-cns. r,v:olved an-h the Court cannot san as
a matter of law that the action was
brought in bad faith!
au-ps-al, Emanuel argues that the dis
trict court failed to construe strictly the
tanguage of section 1692e when is held that
the collection letter need not refer to the
notential u.se o.f any infbrrration obtained
from Emanuel: he also- requests sanctions
under Fed.R,CivY, 11 and FediLAppY. 88.
American Credit eross-apuea]s, again seek-
I S

,1
808

and compensatory as well as puni

ages.

1. The Collection
The FDCPA prov
DISCUSSION
Let
ides
870 FEDERAL REPORTER, Zd SERIES

ing attorneys fees, costs, a contempt orde

ter
tive

that
lector may not use any false, deceptive

nection with the collection of any debt

DiG. * 1692e, fl]he failure to discl
clearly in all communications made to
dam

[a]
r

debt

,
col
The Ninth Circuits decision in Pressley ts
Capital Credit & Collectien Service, Inc.,
760 F,2d 922 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam),
cited by American Credit, is not in point
There, the court held that strict complian
with the statute was not requ
follow-up collection letter that did
quire any information from its recipient,
, or the court did not consider such a letter a
misleading representation or means in con communication within
ose
15 section 1692e, Id,
bar, we are presented
col ation: The Januar
t a first and only collection
at

y
925.
with
1927
ired

the meaning of

a
for
not

In the case at
different situ
lett
lett
er was the
er sent by
ce

re
a

lect a debt or to obtain information abou nuel , As a result,

at American Credit to Ema
is consumer, that the debt collector is e of Ame rican
had no prior notic
tempting to collect a debt and that any Emanuel deb t The
interest in collecting a
information obtained will be used for that Credits disti nctio n
in Presslty recognized the
purpose, constitutes a violation of the Act. court
a

between initial and follow-up lett ers when

JcL 1692e(11) (emphasis added).
rem lett er sen t it noted that its ease did not conflict with
the ,
[11 Emanuel arg ues that
beca use Huishizer t. Global Credit Services tnt,
by American Credit was defic ient
728 F.2d 1037 (8th Cir,1984) (damages
a it stated neither that it was a collection awarded for failure to make required dis
sm
N letter nor that any information obtained by closures in initial collection letter). See
ct
American Credit would be used to colle Pressley, 760 F. 2d at 925-26.
Cred it, on the othe r
the debt. Ame rican
from the face While we do not necessarily agree that a
hand, claims that it is clear be made between initial
in distinction should
of the letter that it was intended to obta lette rs, see 15 U.S,C.
no and follow-up
payment of a debt, and that because ) (all com munications must
from Ema nuel , it is 1692e(11 i
infor mation was soug ht
any such make the required disclosures), it is suff
requ ired to discl ose that Ame rican Cred its
was not cient for us to hold that
information, if furnished, would be used letter to Emanuel violated section 1692e(11)
ve
for debt collection purposes. We belie by failing to disclose that information
fur
4 that the letter disclosed clear ly that it was
nished by Emanuel would he used to colle ct
a communication to collect a deb t Inde ed. that our
the debt. We note in passing
t.he letter not only stated that Emanuels holding comports with the view of the dis
k v.
account had been turned over to American trict courts: in our Circuit, see Sea broo
it orni cs
Credit for imneiiate collection, but Onondaga Bureau of Medical Econ
to
actually told Emanuel how and where taco 705 F,Snp-p. Sl IN,D,N.Y,13891: Aya

make payment so as to satis fy the inde by to. v, Dial Adjustment Bureau, mc,, No,
on,, Piszsatefli
edness. Despite Emanuels: assertion
to
S6-315 iD.Cor:n, fler
the contrary, there simp ly is rw req uire rag rq ,l4 g-, ry- , Sirnfces,Itzc,,
verb attm tise iii.r,er Cs-ed..
ment that. tIm Ic-star ,.uote [blew Deveiostrotots .i ons
?h- ,5i7
Cte,,Jc(t7CH1 1 9f5,3 77, S58
langoags. of the sttute, at

! think it clear from the plain (teCoon, Jan, 20, too

r9

aguags S e ar a
2,
collector reset comol with tot tusciosure to
reuuiremeot.s. regardless of whet her nov [31 A, voiatios,of any nrt-tssrcn. of
snrortnat.ion is remuested. Ccn.gress
en DCPk en-sties to, oebtor to totem ,,sn
i,s:alrct:ve or sot so is.
tional da.mages as the court, may allow, but
N-cued the
scIitSeo the types of comnsur
ssc.aticns cover
o mec to, too _o_* a
ed by section isid2e(ifl, and the cc nissnct.ive
and the costs of the actio n, together with
aofrwh en it described the contents rs
cc:ns nsu.nicatioris. a reasonable atnorrsevm foe as derernusned
quired for inclusion in the
 809
U.S. v. AflANASIO
1989)
Cue as 570 E24 509 (2nd CIr.
tention that the suit
.Si2 kil. a The dis its client, and the con
by the court , itt. iG
c
1 nt may be discarded as
hav ing fou nd no vio lati on of the was to cheat the clie the state tort of
trict court, att or mere rhetoric. Likewise,
no dam age s, cos ts or ly falls within
Act, awardea anu el is malicrous prosecution arguab
con clud e tha t Em district.
revs fees. We dam the ancillary jurisdiction of the
or ad diti ona l
not entitled to actual e c- (:Tnjfed Mi-ne
bec aus e we now find a court, see Am-bromovag
age s. but tha t F2d 972, 98892
sho uld be aw ard ed costs arm Workers qf Amer.. 726
vihiati on, he may be pleaded
rne ys fee- s in amo unts to- be 3d Cir,1984), and arguably
reason abl e atto see 59 NYJur.
disc reti on of the dis tric t court. in the counterclaims here,
fined in the licious Pros
pro ve tha t he 20 FaLse Imprisonment & Ma
Emanuel did not plead nor any- event,
, and thu s he is emat-lorr 57, at 318 (1987). in as
suffered any specific loss Co nsi d the cou nt-erclaims may be considered
s. ught
not deserving of actual damage s non fact uall y- and legally-based claims bro
cre dit
ering the nature of American the fact in good faith to reco
ver costs and atror
wit h the sta tum and ment under the provi
compliance r fre neys fees for harass
com plia nce was nei the ). Under such
that its non itt. sions of section 1692k(aX3
inte ntio nal.
quent, per sis ten t nor ctions are warranted,
we also thin k tha t Em anuel circumstances, no san appeal.
1692k(bXi), diti ona l dam either at the trial level or on
should not rece ive any ad
damages are
ages, particularly since such CON CLUSION
), and no
discretionary, itt. 1692k(a)42)(A trated. t court is
ons The judgment of the distric
actual damages have been dem awarded issed the
However, Emanuel should be affirmed to the extent that it dism
11 sanc
tute man nterclaims and denied Rule
costs and attorneys fees: the sta of any cou anded for
dates such an award in the
case tions, and is reversed and rem
t herewith to
successful action, -itt. 169
2k(aXS). further proceedings consisten
issed the complaint.
an Cred the extent that it dism
In view of the foregoing, Americ A San ctio ns on appeal are denied, and costs
s are wit hou t me rit.
its counterclaim to Emanuel,
not suc on appeal are awarded
claim for malicious prosecution can claim
the
ceed unless the action subject -of
, Mo reo ver , section
is unsuccessful rea
cou rt to aw ard
1692k(aXS) permits a onl y upo n
sonable attorneys fee s and cos ts
this section
a finding that an act-ion under
.h and for the- pur
was brought in bad fait
Suc h a finding UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
pose of harassment. Id.
cannot be made here
L
Louis j. AflANASIO, Marie
8. San-ctione Attanasio. Joseph Va len tin o,
under Fed.
[dl Emanuel seeks sanctions Defendants.
Credit-is
R-,CivJS, 11 based on if- American anaslo,
counterclaim aiiegatlons tha t Emanuel Robert S. Mailon, Robert Att
, cc a Francis S. LstMa gra ,
eoflnsct>acmor;,, t-
ty
Antericar. Credits client: who is.f1
not a par Def endantsAppellants.
to this action, and (ii) tie fact that n Nos, 541. 458, 520, Dockets 88,4
298.
a *n aiic iou sh. cc-r
I-sw does not recognize 88-4807, 85:4842.
el also
mnenced lawsuit as a tort Etnanu
pp:P. 85, United States Court of Apneais,
asks for sanctions under Fed.RA Second Circuit.
ss-ap
contending that American Credits cro are
r, Argued Dec. 15: 198
neal is 1:rivcic,,, Sanctions, noweve s
cir cum sta nce
not appropriate unde-r the Decided Mama 15, 1959,
presen ted her e,
assert
American Credits coants-rciairns Defendants were convicted aft
er jU:fl
el s mal ice in bri nai ng the ac
t
tha Em anu t Court for
s dire cted at Am eric an Cre dit, not trial in the United -States Distric
tion wa
 I m
C

--a
-

rn
.
r .
t t
() -.

1 1
i
a
V IN
I
1
-a
o r
a ci

...
? a
rn
-
a
zci
-N a 4

H
 /
flest s
FEDERAL
SUPPLEMEIT
Sycstem
A Unit qf the National Reporter

Volume 988

Cases Argued and Determined

in the

COURTS
UNFED STATES DISTRICT
UNITED STATES COURT OF
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
and Jdings qjthe

P4NEL ON MULTIDISTRICT
LITIGKflON

/
n

WEST GROUP
712 988 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT

shall enter judgment for the defendants and - .s

T -

close the case.

SO ORDEREII
-

- -

>1 e 1 c -:---
rn .,j.
.:-
:,;rr
I rei-d to
,,
:
1 !?s t
4
.- i 10

Jennifer Lynn ROMEAe.Tlaintift

-
p P-_ ,- 0 -..L . - t that
-.
aff cirp_
HEIBERGER & ASSOCiATES. - - ?-L-- .

Defendant
No. 97 CIV. 4681 tAlC
United States Distrit CoL,
S.D. New YOrk.
- - -

:i!: .c;:,-!:2- VT. raa

Dee-. 22. 1997. -

-v - --.i- I rrig

TenAnt brought action aainst laindlor&s

tan firm, allegng that notice demanding pay
ment of rent arrearage or surrender of rent (-Ufl1Ct jr,(( th,n :; Iii

ed premises to landlord ciolated Fair Debt - : - .:-

,,. r -
a1
Collection Practices Act IFDCPA) Law fl.rfc

firr moved to dismiss for tanure..to state

clam The District Court, Kaplan J held
that: (1) unpaid rent was debt dnder
FDCPA. and 12) notice was. a eOtfl!nunica
don to collect a debt under PDCPA.

P Consumer Protection 1O

Practices Act P
n-
.r5. .rc-.: n-nc ci
that. did not involve extens:c.:n of c:-edt
Troth in Lending Act, 802(a)(5), as amend
nil, l.f USC.4- 1692112(5) Codeen p y crr.e New York, ?fl, for

:0

If Consumer Protection Qc ill

Notice demanding payment of rent ar IFIORANDU4l OPINION
rearagn or surrender f renter- rremises to
N tfPLAN. Dist:-i:-s -loden.
 -

S,utinso
ROMEA v. IIEIBERGER & .N.t 997)
Cite ac 958 F.Supp. 72 (S.D
corn laint
Defendant moves to dismiss the
t on the round that it fail
s to state a claim
e th I
f or ni .
-

upon which relief may be. granted

-

- Cc
Discussion
P
er the
The Unvuid Rent is a Debt Und
FD CP
FDUR4
the un
(II Defendar.t argu.es first that
an re . of the dis
-

Piaintiff ru ai paid rent which was the subject

cov ered by the
,de Ia r uLe puted notice was not a debt
r incurred
FDCPA because the obligation was

1i19 ,c ru i involve the

cnber 2t. in a transaction that did not
,

cipally on
uuere -

extension of credit. It relies prin

ennwi
.

Third Circuits decisi.on in Zi.m.m

-.

the
York rea. e-ta pa ncr
-

v, NBC A.itiiiate Grump.

-

?LEAE T\ fJ, (T i IL stion

Zimmerman presented the que
on ser
whether a demand ho a cable televisi
m it clai med
s:. n- sam 280 0 vice provider that persons who
ed prc imt t mo ney to
sib
had pirated its signal pay a sum of
pe s was an
settle claims for theft. of dervice
ate
N 000 -
the mea ning of
effort to collect a debt within

was not.
0
ay
the statute. in concluding that it
-.

hi p . there was
born the day cc eri e Y the tourt focused on the fact that
.

i no consensual relationship betw een the cable

live
die letter. It
dia i U I r, provider and the recipients of the
scam
-
preJscc th ianLru V c rm- ivent on, however, to:
which
find that the type of transaction
PD in the
may give rise to a debt as define-b
one involving the offe r or
De ILDCPA, s -

Specif-
Iar1y toatterm -chic a extension of credit to a conSumer,
con
thra r -
icallv it is a transaction in which a
righ t to
sumer is oflbred or extended the
or
f acquire money, property, insurance
house
services which are primarily for
s- pai snt.
,m
hold purposes and to defe 5
rent is
Defendants argument here is ttat
pa id in advance, that the tran
saction between
es no
landlord and tenant therefore involv
ot credit.
deferral of payment or extension
was the
and t:hat tin; rer.t arre:arage. that
ne
n
1 --e
scc
e
5 c fre re e i an ,n-e
But defen
did not involve debt collection
g (oorsusrer nor. be
:nnoed
3. Id, 3 .1 692
that ha debt udli be assu med valid orders
the.
ic-i orrilicig withh; thhsv

6. .

SF10 ii.&3(3dCicui107).
3
111. cii i65--69 (eniphasis supplied)
.
- 7.
 MENT
988 FEDERAL SUPPLE
713 nstsrgjj j
are d wit h the. neht 1 ruler the FIX PA notwit n
can not be squ
danCs argument the 1 aek of any 1 axte
o n ns of credit
ge or his tor y of the statute.
tangua
This Court is entirely persuaded by
ss It thes
The FDCPA defines debt
as: Seventh (Irciuts reasi ing in Ba
tion 711 ot ice m
y obl iga tio n or. alle ged obligation of a fore rods that tnt Sec
An t within the nieanbr
arising out of a case related to a deb
consumer to pay money
ney, property, ftne FDCPA
transaction in which the mo b nuarucattop to CoU
are the su Toe ,Vot,ct Was a Qo
insurance, or services which
ari.ly for a Debt rader the frDtFA
ject: of the transaction areS. prim
pur poses, trat the S.
personal. family or househ
old [2] Defendant argues aso
bee n unicrjon to
whether or not such obliga
tion has tlon ll notice a-as not a ccrnn
aning of tIt4
reduced tO Judgment collect a Jeb within the me
tion 1092at1 1 aef ine s comuiiu,.
the plai n lan gua ge of the statute dear ratuts Sec ing of orrnatj
Thus,
tio ns to par as H-he coot-ey mf
con sum er obl iga tlv
ndtrec to arty
ly embraces clas s of rogarong a debt di. ett!y
or

- of the rel evh nt

money aristug out n an nednnn In view of
ctio ns wit hou t teg ard to wnether the person titroug not ice deman
tra nsa Sectio n 711
tra nsa ctio ns inv olv e the extension tfl tart that the nce ment of
underiyin.g the com me
err al of pay me nt. Mo re ed payrent on rain of
of credit or the def
eviction proceedings there i
no eoiorle
e his tor y- res ort to whi ch
over. the legislativ hat it does not satisfy the
v and ari nia biv ina nproprlate in argwnent
isunne ces sar ing deficutwn of comma.
suc h dea r, sta tut ory lang uage---- FDCPA sweep
the face ot on
ge suggests. in cati
confirms what the langua stion is
enacting the FDCPA. Congress
dropped pro 3 1 The out) remaining que
per bas is for devi*
which, if adopted, tether them is an) pro
posed statutory language s inb igu
e to debts aris tog from the v-lair rnna-o,g of thi una
would have limited the statut There is nt Defen t dan
m tra nsa ctio ns. inv olv ing extensions of am, language
ing fro de Cotnmia
r language quot stoats to the :288 Federal Tra
credit in favor of the broade nta rie t- on the
sU.7fl FTC edaff comme
ed above) n es rude from
FDCPA a-inch purport
cov ere d ale the aotie that s required
The view that the debts F DCPA 7 r
e ra o ge

behond thos ari sib g from to enforcing a cam

pay me nt o> aw as a orereqolsite
def err al of creditoi and
cranslictions inbolving
of the rrna nrihgat on tea-een
a ma jor ity c a egaa gre
reflects the conclusion.s of ibr, t a PSi r 4 nth
a en
o- con sid ere d a- V n falls
Courts of Ap- peal 5: tO tov 53j: too Ce u y r
4 -

S :-( t-. I, to tie C: 4 At.O

ft aet ih an 10

S I iv t atLUCgC
4C \ O,ter
0 0 P fee exa m p1 a t. Fe-
la

7 -va - t tan rot
a
ate
H

n the lan gua ge to.

Seventh Circuit rehed upo O9-(7 it in ttOT
the .itg toia uve - isto i-ti-
the statute aj
7 1 ,t- J,k oarHe , 7
71 ..73 4 ,- 7

4.71 C c-i at. t.:

to iTO 4 2-a 1
a
-fr -

UlC__.7.7.7 4(7
is 7(

z 1ev ---to c a
,

1_
f

1 1
-an.7-a-
0
.7
,.-7--
.7
.7 7, (.7 -7
_.

: ,:-: (--7-
.7, -
,.
,_
_: --

.i,-J9
Sc fit Ftod 1322, 132.7ftthC

it), 1.-i
a,
.7 7

.
c:G
JUG,
-
PDCPA
trace of a. debt covered to the.
Or, .::-7z
,4 -- rr 15:i:: dci. .
,

itt/b, at 198, is -den

(74:, 4
tt
i to7 o (.7777(4
 .

4 E4

?3 !iflW t ,
mmii
! C
* -
Ia cam a
2.
a Z
m D
a& fr
0
I
n

4o 0
0 r C C

N VtsJ
4e; J
C

-4t
g1
St Ft
pa
;Sa atis tf C,
d I a
-
S [ZN
L -: r 4
41 0

4
a St
j t
0
u jui U,
at

aTc.m
fH

>. / /
 1

988 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT

716
Cob rottce it served on nenaS if its
nonpayment of rent violatea Fair Debt tatatorv precomlinur to the QQ
After its chert as a 1
lection Practices Act (FDCPA).
motion to dismiss complaint was deni ed. 988 niencement of a New York summary disp4 *
certify s*-s prnceedtng tn ron-payment of rent
FSupp. 712. law firm flled motion to
District sib ect to the 4nr aauce It was a com
ruling for interlocutory appeal. The
tory ap rication tre
i ia to a Otbt and falletw
ng
Court. Kaplan, I. held that interlocu
peal was appropriate, since questions
of confoim to the Act tn a number of respe

whether rent was a debt cove red by Act The Court recently denied defendanfl
and whether the nttice was a commun
ica non t chsmics the compiami. nulding that,
tion covered by Act involved cont
rolling unpaid rent is a debt and the nofi&
questions of law as to whic h there was sub corintenjeanort reiaurg thereto under b
stantial ground for difference of opin ion and -Ic Defendant no- motes to certify t
ad Courts mllng for interlocutory
since immediate appeal could materially
on of litiga tion. ant to Z P SC i292m P
a
1 1nuffdoen
vance ultimate terminati
C
oPpose the motion
Motion granted.
i-ection 1292(o) provides that a distrit ;
1 adge nat certify an orrier for 7
mterlocutox
FederalCourts 66O.5
anpeal if the iudge (11 is of the opfrj
Whether an obligation to pay rent con img questior
Col such order yvoltcs a outro
stituted a debt covered by Fair Debt ubs tantial gri4jj a
whether au as to which there is
lection Practices Act (FDCPA) and t2i ai imm
statuto for difference v upir ion, and
three-day notice served on tenant as
sum diare appeal from the oruer may tnateri
ry precondition to commencement. of ej is
pay advance the aibmate tennination of thali
mary disposse.ssion proceeding for non reriw-enent, are amply at
t:

com mun icati on cove red gato n 1 nose

ment of ren.t was a
by: Act involved controlling questions of law 1 slled here
nd for
as to which there was substantial grou \s this Co mts ommon dernonstrate,
of opin ion and the resol ution of
difference herr i- a nthct aog tile cnnits aw to

which c.ould materially advance ultimate ter atethei an oohgation mutt involve the
that
mination of litigation apaanst law finn a of pa:-nent ir dcr N. consuLate a deW
ce on tenan t: th.er efore ., cert. iftca
served not.i ca-re g P 4e, at-i issuS a
al war: -

tion of order for interlocutory appe

wn,cr our ri at Oaa not spoicen Is rent

appn.:iuriate. 28 U.ti.C.A. 1292(bl. r n- e isarguAb!

at -an ibiigaticn to pay rent is not
cite
r

Colleen F. Motinire. Now Y:,rk. N\.

tor ,7- II,

ut- e -r
possib would
ci mba t qu-ite 1
y 4

Rather &
-. - I the
tan ics: unare, itt1nt If, fI-r i7 #
i
0 f,t s
hN je
P_
< -rrtit ( e\l-
n1omi e - t S SC
Lii
-

:f44)Pilfflj flpjy:Jip 5kbJtlCt is

) Os F ens tr_
-c-
itAPI .AN, Distert ti::iarw
I-

O Fi i a f it D P4. 5
He ciofrnn nn.
,-
0.17 aasots
irni :jr.:iatrid r air Dcht cniit:ott Prar itt rutorOflt
7
I 4
ii 7

- ntO
P1:41
..i:

.
F. turin
Ti? tONY l9T. 7? / 77 Ii it - 1
4, IK
qr
j.7:((
3. C-:rn;au B.ou1I ,: tpp
I I C
I I- I
 ROMEA v, HEIBERGER & ASjOUJa1t,
Cite at 988 F.Supp. 715 (S.[1.NY, 19%)
no
couid be time consuming, the Court has
So too is the issue whetner the three day
hesitation in concluding that an immediate
notice was a communication relating to a
. appeal could advance tite co.nciusion of this
debt the Courts opinion makes clear
litigation materially.
t..be Federal Trade Commission staff has tale
law
en the position that a not..ice required by This Court recognizes. of course, that in
ite to ento rcng a cont ractu al
as a prerequis tcrlocutorv orders are not to becenifier)
obligation between cremlor and debtor, by routinely, even where the standards set fttrth
judicial or nonudictal legal process .is not a p Section 1292(b are 7 met., But. this. case
conan nicat ion with the mean ing of the
involves a question of broad applicability that
FDCPA. Here, there is no doubt at all that isof considerable Importance to t.he bench
the three day notice at issue was reqi ed by and bar in the State of New: York, It is this
Section 711 of the New York Real Property consideration that strongly underscores. this
Acttons and Procedure Law as a prerequisite Courts conclusion that its rating as appropri
to the institution of a summary proceeding ate for interlocutory review,
for nonpayment. of 4 rent. Accordingly, were
the Circuit to adopt the FTC staffs view, the There is an enormous volume of i.itigation
dism .isse d.
complaint would have to be in this City and State based on claims of
While this Court believes that Hein tz a Jen rent, In each of those cases,
nonpayment of 8
5 and the statutory language forec lose
kins a notice complying vnth RPAPL 711 must try
tion, reaso nabl e
adoption of the staff s posi be served.. In many, quite likely most, of
on that cont rol
minds perhaps coul d differ those cases, the notice is prepared and F

ling question. served by the landlords attorney as part of

An immediate appeal from the orde r deny the services rendered in handling the pro
g is
ing defendants motion to dismiss could mate- ceeding, me effect of this Courts rulin -Y -4
tice as
daily advance the ultimate termination of to require a sea change in the prac
ion deny ing door to a flood of federal tie ,,t
this litigation Although the opin weil.as to open the a
Stir
the motion to dismiss well may dicta te the court suits against lawy ers unde r the
liabmt thee ae at FDCPA with respect to three day notic es
ultimate result as to 4 4
be
east nsc othe significant Tatters that re served by them within the paiod that re
main pnor to the entr o tina ,jadg met mains open under the statute of limitations. to
0$w
First, plan if teeks to rraintair this case as Both of these consequences *111 have unto-
a ciasa action, the prop--et ci sancl- is hntls ward effects. 3
di
t
3 rd s by the defendant, .Second, if a class
certified, the class would be entitled to The requisite change mt landlord-tenant
will be 5substantiaL . Lawyers who
tile actual dan-ages o c ass members mus ar practice
-as
sen-s three day notices, anti who
amount fixed in the discretion of the Court regularly ctors
not. to exceed the lesaer.of ff000 or I per therelore may be treated as debt colle
to do sic
cent of the set worth of the 5 defendant As under the FDCPA, ctiuld contir:ue
only if they afford 80 days
a with respect to these issues free. of liabi.lity
-tsr
the proceecii t
Trth,d& s Smenc-rar A,ithrt.,,Trc 932 PSuno
4, Section ii, however, beeS not reqaire that the 57
.notice e wrved three dan before commence 521, 528 (S.D,N,Y.199s), F

tnet,s ci the proceeding. It rec.utres eaSt thttt it

be. asned re 4ea three days in advance, Hence, 8, Ia i996, over 318,000 stranmaty landlord-ten.-
e.asrihie to contplr, wtth the 30 dcv ant ;rn:rveeding:s Were filed the New Yetk
rovisi,rt be the FDCPc end Section 711. at oc
I
-
-
,

though doi:ng so wocid radically rithe New York. thi.s figure ine.hade.rtrtrocaeditsr.s based
on
as C CC 5 tSr
&r
00,rLa Crocrirte tither loan no 1 P-tt vent
:7. 000cc icr se-rved by the landlord a attorney. iai ten-
non-payment cases iavolving conlrnerc Is
neither of which is affec ted hr t.he FDCPA.
514 291,298 175 tOOt 1489. 1492003.
r:3 L,Ed,1431s 1998)
r;rot:abiv aitecis s-rbaanrialtv over
10000.0 c.a,sea
6, .
7
1:075th fi .crt,t rare ir \:.yt S t.
6% a%;,00 , be &es,da Ltd 101 1:130
2:63 (2d Cit. 1996) iinierlorruiorv anneal 9. S gsrrer:rllc nic7enrrarn. 40 lilac B. P. ii
Care exception to the final turigtteat evict
 718
H
988 flDERAL SUPPLEMENt:. -:

notice rather than the three renuired b-v Peat housmg s extrerne rrrnnrtant in
state law and otherwise comply with the ins, State It is critical that those concernj
fedehal statuta The.aiternative would be for ,vush the resolution of disputes ooncernrng
their landlord clients eithibr to dselawyets such housingtenants, landlords, and thj /

who do not serve many three day notices or attorneyshave as much certainty as pose
to serve the nflces themselves. Either of PLC Ddncernlng the necharnams which
these options would permit- service of three tnoe disputes are rtsolved In cunequen,
day notices because neither the Ia*yen occa it is nsa Courts view that a speedy aetenij
sonally serving such uotices per the land nation of the status of three arty nothag
tords themselves are debt c )llector- sub under the PDCPA, whatever that resolutiij
jecttothestsruteJ n-a be, 15 in the pubuc interest.

Still anotner concern underscores the liii
portance of prompt appellate review. Given
the level of contention that frequently char
acterizes landlord-tenant relationships in
New York City. it is not surprising that
attorneys representing tenants in non-nay
nient proceedingm evidently deekirigH to
ute alleged violatidnd of FDCPAbkeid * of the htigation.
N
this Courts decision to seek dismissal of
--
Accrdingly, this Cc.nt nas determined
that its memorandum decision of Deceniboc
23, 1997 involves controlling questions of law
outlined abos e as to which there is substan.
id ground for hffer-ence of opinnin and tha
an :mmediate appea. fron the crner may
materially advance the ultimate tenrunatia
-

SO ORDERED
otherwise meritorious petitions on the
ground that the three-day notices did not
comply with the federal statute. IndOed,
counsel fOr the plaintiff in is hase -hdiii&
sued suck a call t arnr In ti Web kite
posting that concludes with the peroration:
Housing is a human right not a coinmodi
ty to bargain over. Tenants, tenant advo
bates add .tenant attorneys must fight back Fred ALSTON, As a Trustee of the Local
against this feudal era inherited sistem 272 LaborManagement Pensuu Fun4
called rent 51w legal means necessary and as, a Trustee of the Loeiu 272 Wel
The homes dccisb-n give-s us a big rock to tore Fund, Plaintiff
throw in Gohaths face. Let the monkey 4--
wrenchers storm- the barricades!
KAl EAST PARKG DORP,RATION,
It of eonsse will b-c for the s-tare eou:rts. [in iencrnt
the f:rst baLance.. tu
whether a violation of the FDCPA in an No. 1*3 (iv. O9{i IJES)
.attorne v-signed three day noti.ce is a defense U-ni-ted States District Court,
to a noeL-paymon. proceeding! In view of am. ym
:7 HN

-
5.: r. 5-- 1 .rn: rats i-c ed at N e isa
the:-
-
to
fr L)i-P.A PP
110 it-ti

notices signed by attorneys who do so as a

:-agnlr practice be settled for the Circuit as Trusts-es of union pension funds brought
- -
-- cold 1.0 eec or

0,,-, S I
1692(ohl I), 1692cr -
,, --

fitS. 15, 79 Sfl 429 430_si. 3 LEd2d 475

I, DiGennaro All, Es. 13, at & (105-9)-, Br-tests JnL-as v. 4-,. Can 02* 330 145-
fr H Svrr,-n:o Cuur-,! ho 74467 viCt. 1015-. 91 LEd 121c-{s-947), such a
12. .---
 pjg 3LbQAL Jafl(f
(zf
(ALIE,sJ($t\ Ev(flErJcE 4c1 (ca)

r rt
I
1

Law- rc,
fc$ qS

I. (2!
:s 1 3d ( F //
 Wsts
FEDF.iu REPoRTER
7h in! Serk
k.porccr Sysceirt
:4 Liut

4
YN:5E$YE!

Volume 163 F.3d

ined
Cases rtsgsud and !Ayrerrn
in she

RTS OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COU

t U 1
l
t ,
a:: :t L)i

t. fr*d A%oL

$%.4.
:y:j (
R
7 OVP
I i
 ROMEA v HEIBERGER & ASSOCIATES
co- 163 F3d II! lanaco. 1995!
have no its, nor do we see any need. (OAt LLSIO\
to rot. t:he
0

liatviito HtH(*tse onto

0* itO i-
1

those nu.rchasers. who ac.quut d their securi H-

ties in a public offeri.ng hr an issuer or its
contriling share holders hr meows ot a pro
s.pectus or orai communtcation rotating to a
pros tectus 00 in voice Seed on 2212 and the-
DRIP Plan .ta. not a p130* 1,ffcting or

nnae L cc 10 lf
8.561. APi-SI. s te ii pni 1
pp he
f/if.
I 2 ,::-; i,n:, 1

OH! 10001: -c

SD NY. dliv In, ilit. W 0 need rr reach

11E1BERGF & A8St)UUTES
this argument. however, hecaasc. we hart
DefendantAppellant
already held that IBMs statement that we
have no plans, nor do we see any need, t.o cut Docket No, 987259
the dividend is not a materially false. or
misleading statement. United Sttcitcs Court of Anneals.
Second Circuit,

[161 Finaijv, we rete-et olainufric count
that the disuict court ahused its discretion in
iim!ting dncr.verv to ;nioItrtat p to that related
to tnatters that accurren or 0 iii Sis
nary 26, 1992 dividend cut. 00- record re
flects that the district court carefully consid
ered the interests of both parties in deciding
whether to expand discovery and concluded
that plaintiffs weak showing of potential
relevance in i.w extensive discce-crv request
was insufficient to-outweigh the ooroen and
Argued N er.
B ccidel Dec 0 191)8.
Tenant hrought a.ction against iandiords
law firm, alleging that notice demanding pay
ment of rent arrearage or surrender of rent.
ed premises to landlord violated Pair Debt.
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Unit
cr1 States District Court for the Sonthern
of P0*-n- Po,-t,- T.snric. P ktrmtrr:

t.nn ns-st nt tt.t:r: 03

of al.)i..et*r.*. I t r.It rest, I, n:..I e,

discovery t fir Ihmes
, c ft P 1 r.eherot, h*::o:l watt (it i-n:r,- rent. was dit:tir,rithin
407 Pd-. 20. titi. 104 NUt., 2199 EdAd 17 n:eaning of PDttF A.: (2) t:hree-dat rent diO
(1984) dir-en. that the infornuit:ic,n sought.
ruand n Ot.c.e., renu ire.d hr New o.r It lacras
was only roirdntaliv relevant te plaintoffs: aPe.
condotion precedent to sununarr eviction pro
gationa that IBM made fidse stat e.ments dur ceeding. was a communication to collect, a
ing the class I.e nod and the dcfinit.e ouroen 0- within toesn.:o 0r of PD(.tPA 1 .0001
112 163 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES

i SOei as amended, 14 LS.C,

1. Consumer Protection lO
Back rent is debt within meaning of
5

See publication Words and Phrases

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). For other iodicial roast rurtions and def-
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. hOt;,
as amended, i5 US.CA. t i692&5).
6 Landlord and Tenant 297( 1)
See publication Words and Phrases
For other judic:ial constructions and deh rrhreedav rent demand notice, required
by New York law as. preree aChe to summary
e:victon proceeding, is. not t pleadIng, but is a
2. Consumer Protection 1O notice to tenant. of what must be done to
ih.ree-dav rent demand not.iee., required torestall a summary proceeding
1w New York law as conottjon 1 oreceder to
t N.Y,McRinnevs NEAPE 4 711, wind. 2.
summary eviction proceeuing, was a cornnciu
nication to collect a debt, within meaning of 7. Consumer Protection 1O
Fair Debt Collection Practice.s Act FDCPA). Fair Debt Collection Practices kot
Fair Dobt Collection Practtres Act, St)32), FDCPA) legal process exonmtion. exenipt_
c-.
as amended, 15 LLS.CsA, Pih2ai2it: ing from the definition of tiast collector any
NX.McKinneys RPAPL 711, subd. 2. r.cers:on while serving or attempting to serve
See rubirsarron Words and Phrases legal process, was intended to anpur only to
sr othcr :ijcc-tai conu ricH, or s arid process servers. not to cose. who preparea
irrition.s, he communication that was served on the
consumer. Fair Debt Collection Pracbee:s
3. Landlord and Tenant 311 SOdoliD; as amended. iS
Act.
laider Now York lacy, if court finds in :5 ,Lt?O,55j 0 L)j.

favo.r of landlord in summary eviction pro

5 Conso.rner Protection 1O
ceeding, co-urt cviii issue a warttant entitling
ansuerd to take ossessior of the- auartnierct, hren it concomnec etrcct cit our-lying both
and it is this wiurart that can-seis cease an and federal nrctecrior:s was more than
terminates landlordvienant relationship. either Congress or state legislature intended,
N 7 \IcK no s RPi e 7l ,uhc 2 l) t.hat oossibilitv would n.ot empower court to
1, awl the oioiti nauaar; ran Dart.
cit o ac or
4 Landlord and Tenant e3lU( 1) sult. were absu.rd tir directly contravened pm-
i odor Nov Ycirb: law, landlord mar crc the sh Fair Dr Coilecticn
0

mart: po coedin but it ecu otcirdo this as a.

, cit scil.
matter anciliart to the c-.ocrrts :lurisdicticm to

bloc,. P.C. NCv \C, CV. ;tlcoibsrn F.

749. New
hkcCcrire., iVic Ic,: .0.. .0 ftc.nti.a. CC.

PA ii i j tIC it .515 O I HO ti,

rOt

acu-nurc;e bitri! 1W t .
t. .: ici. ..
ci it:..vlo A.i:

cite. tothrei-Ocw root O5O Ii

1. ucerPi nc ;iict
nod lhnr:ia.c.; RicddcC
as clirot :coll.e dryrs for FDCPA p
 ROSIEA ;-. HEWERGEII & ASS-OCIATFIS
-ca-c, L-S St :1! Lr,dar.

York, viAL lvi- Arn:cur C:ui:iae .Nationa.l Mn.lti sent :c letter to PiaintiffAppeiiee Jennifer
I caraninent Assort ,vnn Rortea dcntandinn hock rent alie-todit

)rogr-arn, Inc. N ationni. Association of Home PLEASE: TastE. Norics that. ,n are: here
J._c1!! :XS.5.Lnt
nbc:- traictatila fo-in Ittirt: tnaC:. tat
-:
(ion. sum of 32,S01L0O Stff cent of tr:e preralsesol
-,u::t.-
ann

con tat J H -k,0

tik on I n eon- tort -ore requ- ired -aatr:tn
for Atnicn.s Curiae Bora.h , Goldst ein, Aitsc.h u days 115! m the d of set ice vi th i. s L.7.: t.ice -
icr & Scitveartc.. PU.
Scott A. Ro:-:enherg, ifirector of .Litigntinn. the landlord If rot: fail to pay ni to
- -

Civil Appeals: and Law Reibrm Unit, Hwa.n- up- the oiinis:e,s, the l:-:nd)ca-d
--

: a:
Ii ci !tc1ac Leo, of coun.sel, Civil Anisan It. me t:e e :-c.:na nra r- or_nac-e :i Ir art. a cv
Law FLeknr: Unit., and Helaine Sarnett., At to recover possession of toe pre:tm:::e.s.
tornevin-Chare, Civil Dn-asion, The Le.gai. at bn 15! 0-
\e 1 J I a a
Curiae CityWide Teak Force on .1-lousing 5-700 rent for the months of September, Uctc
Court. 0 at 7

Before: CALAf3RESI, SACN. and On June 2)-. 1997, Rornea flied a c-lass
SOTOMAVOR, Circuit Judges. action coripla-int il-I the Southern District: of
New Yen-: late-Ira- that Inc letter
CALAP-RESI, Ca-cuit Judge: provisions of the FDCPA. Sp-ecifieaily. the
This case raises the issue of whether the complaint assertec that the letter- (1) violat
requirements of toe t art Lie-ar c-cl ra- (SO. t- ntng, Lw ta:nntr: to a-ne
Practices Act DCPA), 15 USC, iN 1692 (i:uatelt aoviser the Fiaintiff of her ricists:,
1692o, apply t.o an attorneys e.xecirtior: and because the thirty (30:! day validation notice
delivery of the royce-dir rent demand cornea required hr 10 OSLO iLviui ! teat not
that is required 5)! New York law asacontir placed anywhere in the dentand fur payment
lion prece.dent to a summary eviction pro- of the. alleged debt:t 2 violates 1.5 lTSC
ceeding. Fin-dirrg ti-ar the FLUPA ti-oas ap ihO2tg:- necause it orotranrcts
N We affirm tine distflct trotirtta. oeranl Ut
1
P rnent that. the Piainti.ff i-c advised of i-n-ti he-
the defendants motion to dismiss the plain given- a thirty (30) day period in which to
tiffs ccnaoianr, cits-nate rite- At 0; :3: .ai:-e-, un nL-:r-- se- ni-a:
--

iv that t-he eferi-.dart. was: stten:otutr it:.

I, BACKfHIOUNI) rollert a (iebt awl that an:: i-nforntation oh-
talt-et: tk::,i: ::e-oron or La: 7 v:co
* .t cc:
Or. ].decm:-:-nr- 20, tOt-h, Lre-itnds-nr.--Apnei-
reqnireu::-y IOIHS ,C f: tO-ti-Pta-Li. i 0: at:! -

iant Hetnerger &-. Assoctates : Fie:thet--ger

1. .e._ -w,, :s5t.s- c. . :-ha: he -icr-: -c a- an r-
Wart, 1! 7 5-: a1tat.r..-!c,:7! lilt

obta in ye :i-.iice- : tan a-, i d:e dc-b rot- :: Cot!

hoc with:: con tan-a- a in. ,:onaecti-oo w: 0: th
coo:
conccnc,n of an-- deLi, a debt colL:otor thali. tao :-ne.nr agtsi nat. ti-v conan ,er a etc a.

F :1r:---,r,:,,-!,---::! :: :r a
has pa-id the debt, te:-ni th n-cc!:. a&!rner at elite
notice conta:mna- rEt: sc i.FSQ2tn,o)

Within tL:rry coy-s after accent o the. notice. toIi,twin:t con-titter is a niotatiort 1
,5 see-
to ! f

(4) a statement that If the censor-icr n-aihc ta-n coma! o!cai:on t- itt! !t,e ct-n-ann--er a-::d. it:

the dvii collector in writine: within tin thee- andrtion. if thea. ::itiat core-c-ott-n: u-an::!:
1.14 163 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES
Scotto it
(4) contained threats to take actions that dismiss under Rule 126-kS). see
could not legally he taken, or that were not I
fn-(p Irdr,C i

3
r

and because it requires us to. answer an issue:

intended to be taken, in violation of 15 USC.
of statutory interpretatiOn . see Perry ,-
1692(eX5).
Dau fLoes. 95 Flu 231. 235 (2d 6-6-2996), En
ne;oeraer moved to dismiss the complaint
evaluating a motion to dissniss fer failure, to
nursuant to Federal Rule of Clvii Proced
ure
a claim, It sat state a claim, we are required to accept as
12(b)(6) for failure to state true all factual allegations in the complau-g
iroed that the FDCPA does not apply to the
arid to consider documents attached to or
latter because rent due is rota debt and ncornorate by reference i-fl me comolant
its letter was not. a debt collection conintuob Cooper a. Parek-y, 140 FM 433, 440 (3d
cation as the FDCPA defines those terms. thai 998) (citations omitted).
The district corn-i denied the motion, holding
that both
oiain Ian cage and the legisia B.Rack Rent is a Debt
rite history of the FD(PA dictate the concun
sion that the requirements of the FDCPA [1] Heiberger contends that the FOUPA
apply to Hal bergens ie.t.ter See .Rc rica a
doe.s not, apply to It-s. letter to Homes because
back rent dna-s not (all under the 5 FDCPV
Hciz5eve-r & ,-isrrocs,. O8S FSupp 712
deflniticn of debt, The FDCP A defines debt
.iD.N,Y.1997).
as:
Heiherger thereupon moved (or certifica am, acbgatson or aile-sed obligation of a
tion of an ruterlocutor: a peal, which the con<surner to na more: ar,scag out of a
:iistnct court granted. Lu sojoina, It transaction in which the money, property
(1) that there is a conflict among the circuits insura.nce, or services which are the sub
as to whether an obligation must involve the.
5
.iect of the transaction are primarily for
deferral of oavment n order toconsutute a personal, family, or ne-us.enoid puroses.
a ,ae r
ueo wLLnn ne n:eamne
whether or not such obligation has h:een
and (2) that [tlhe effect of this Courts rub reduced to judgment,
ing is. to reonire a sea change in the practice.
well as to open the (:oe.r a flood of
tedeia court uir.s aga Inst Lwyees the n[ic:j
Heibc.rgerinvo hes s.oco b-as. es on La a rgu
FDCPA. Romeo. p Heiber ger & Assocs , snent that back rent is not-debt, First, it
iQ5 -- 715, 716iT (SDN1J998),
05
ccI a as.serts th.at rssnt is not s. delt because leaseh
cent
ice appcai on March 1(1
u-a

I?.:: a specified persod, ama mont.hiy

basis, for the use of the premis es for that

IL DISCUSSION
,
5
it05.bob Re:ius.un rise bab of dicta in a

e
0 :.
.:i-Sijj6--u a- 4 Piici I 10:4, 1.1 did ei
We s-crOw the snst:-ct c:,urts dececon sO
score both because is: involves a motion to t957)d Heiherger snaint.ains that rentS is not

lIeu 4 deis on 4Iurw ieicrnh

be used tee sh a span
-
6- - --nasjscavahve a
:01511::.: 1

h:,es:sal .-o.dias, wade in 00 :anu

tar:: .rd::ia 0::,: .1- ht:rd
IC
I -C

.:s .:. i.i:e-.. a a .

- a Ot ow: IS
 TES i tr
HEIBERGER & ASSOCIA
ROMEA v.
jau%t
t.s v.51 a fl ::s.1. ticiy,s L
.:t1 its pay:neut ohlltta
1
tfl ,:tfl31.)_1)
f ,),tV.:l.j
:p. C:tK C
.1,, n.ippcnt hnve.rn th,* n t.i&s
. Virttiuih
,, :it .;i: :j :k
.it:iiJati.fl I. pa: 1. iO
ni it,.. rhqt ncf; ill rfrcnit.s that hav
e ;:dclress.tC h. jsu
kb Sw,:d, ! ct
4 t stwh iw
e td k: ::,
dt t und er te FD CP .4 tcatts3 d;shonnreo checks hav F DC PA
at is L ciae ia:fl4Ua<t: J P
() le4 t,tea Ia. thu Untler

j:4;ri;t, t!: 1 tejtji. Wfl F r .tag itt$ t:s

*a,.L k;4z Ui:
i.:.:,
;t::s l.a,!i Si :t,t.4:.
;.;t . ,::r:s -

a
i tt.f ;ton:c c

:j !:
nierti cohUnJ.. ::v ;

ise the :IT.

:zd !eknhn: e,it& Beat h,: pfl .:

Ik31diuid
WnaaiL
t not tns atn:g to t.;,.t t*i.:!r rt;
1:
;o:s u;d is iiciiergtu
tice !ivansy utI4,L SttCh e.i,dtt a. isa i:c1 v:J,;ts l.i
;fl,. .!:,I t:t,t t..
vnntc-d by Ne;v Y:rk t;u tr
,

!k !t::t, !ut Pe hrg r

:tat:t: t!r
ceedingi i,aw 91 from.
.5

b \vhnt Heibrzr its e!rn that the e:i vis;t tor

lug the tenant. the result
:e-s n$l
n or. vftajch tEe di.t ir:ust
t
tion
noncmisersi eat rela tence ifs transactio
charattenzes LS a ttr;ctu::i
wuaahwueu .sc be groiindco means art Ec&J1 eoi
shin n, different rhat the iaeluths nc sw-h
arrangement. The FDCFA
rh :C
of cable w:ensiur ,cn:w,s
:.I!

Anti, a,. H&r2r fl2uknt.

flint of taxes.
t suc h ur,sut hor izn d uso s Fe.ILi
courts have held tha t transaeunn
de ht Cf S!a tth tt frIors, 626 i.zd Moreover, even if a cunen
are urn is, in tact.
(1r .1$*O i (nonj ayntertt ut Laws): we re nec essary, such a uai;saetkri
275 (3d who st-flits a
Snpi. ; tD.C.:n!!. present in the eaae of a han.ii,rd
Corati a Lejkowf is. 9L3 F. This is &O be
1997) (una 5 th:.r
s Q ia nr csjilt warning etter 10 it tnnnt.
failure tt.
rs firs t. po ii:d niisejnsttII&S 1w eaa se. h New Y.wk. the ennts
Heiberge autnrnatic:ul.
er nil rent is an make a rental payment does not
issue, which is not wheth tead. e*)KJeF
er back rent is h end the lease agreement. Ins
extension of credit. hut wheth tkmn.
dehC lb at: New York law, the Ituidlord-tecant r&a
a debt. I !nder th FDCPA. se is
obligation to pay xnony ansing -ut of ship terminates and the lea laflt in
-nonld. faniir, ;dy anti a hcucing court tit:da4 the t(?f
- . .

transacUon that mvolves j:w under the lea.e.

16 1 LS.C. 1 ji of i;s nhligatisas
or household nsptsec j
i
* 11392a(S). 1aek rent
hr its nature L% an Sn NY. Real Prop. Act,. Law * 749,3,
the ttnauits McKirnny 1979). The lease expr.:ssiy tines
obligation that arises only from iuIts
unj-i- ii e the Wnant deL
failure to pay the amounts h:e nt end either at the tim
contractual lease trat:Micnhr,
Ic this
on her obligation to pay
rent or tnten the
the obl iga tin i, warning letter.
speet, back rent. is much like a tandlord sei:ds the zonati
ck wh ere to lb.- u:auth
arising out of a dishonored che d on Thus. Ht-i!t! re refertiat
tis sol eu or th,
service has been rerdertu goo iit d us if ,-al}., teicvsioi; seric
Th e ;b
f taics c mgnnnsjme. in
tins
the prernii.e of IflW.3Giat.: nnr;r:nwut t
h::t
n cnntuaetuai nlationshii,
,, ,i
.

ligate,. tts DRy tilt- 49 4 tt t CSt 4

s .1.r :v, Snri

t- !Y bat-k rent, 4r inde ever exkieC.
s tkw
an extensjnt s.f cre.li: hut rhther Iwcau
A use is n:ltt xi
,c tbt rhtek wftess (at
:
.,; ;:.. ;. r . 2? $fl. fl,ici.
4
b,
. oc,e,g,ti,. .iIlttIh
en, td 3 .,3;%-3
I. I : t, 1. . :97 s; ( n.rsks t i.z.lJcg;eI- 6,
.s.a-,-,.:9f3
,
.5 :,.

? F 31 :7i, H:.. d,sh oru ,r.,d cat

5XS PC, .
flt 17 ok
(hns
u
t that a
SC: 4
.; i.i, sic PA, A,s

I:,w
%.iLiuti:iiv:aica.s
S;o:pr Eoit:iess.:v. brew.a,,
ueat i,:t:te;s,
ry.icg) t44$ V :1 , , ; 4 ,C:. ,:: :

& .Wuse, T !-3.: iZ,! .

r. t.f ;hi Fh( PA At so,
r:t! !:p1s!a!h. in
.

:o ds ,4k.,-. . ets.,
nse 3ns ng it uct ,

I:<e / R:dsfl., PC. i3 I.3d list

a:, na u, tfl I
1<fs .
!., o .t: .s:cu:;l,, s.. :. c sfl 4flt:a l.2a.4 U $ 1
:4
-k,:) S. r
4,,& s,,t ;: ,
, V f%
pan R.t:e:n sa as,, .c,.u.,uas, , .,

i ,ocs asid
n r attn t[fl e .me oiit:is I S; 4t.i, V.lt,,i.t,

ves a inhim,nd J:c si v:.,a,. :an7i.:,::,.

t;,at ,.ast r n: i,. a th,t undn t,t
1 cieskhng
Dufty, j33 P.34 ie ;:; 2 1: Ht:.tu . 4k 4
rN

SiC PA,.
ava:r,.d eked. e:i%jiotc,s debt because .t es.
116 163 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES

Heiberger raises other similar (and equally Heib-ergur asserts that the purpose of the
unavailing) arinimente as to writ back rent Article 7 process xs not- 7ebt coilectie;:. but
at jeast under New York law, IS not dent. it rather a means of quickly adjudicating dvi
contends that because a tenant can avoid putes Over rights of possession of no aT propS
ecicuon ny raanns oaes rent in response to a erty,Hejhergr xnajntsjps that the matter
notice of warning from hex Landlord., payment of the rent owed by tire tenant is i.ncidentai
of back rent in such circumstances is not to the summary roceedings orinuxrv pun-
payment. ot a debt. but payment to secure the nose, that of regaining possesscn of the
right to continued occupancy in the future. premises. See By-rn-c xx. PmfiLew, 248 NY,
But there is no reason why paying back rent 24,3. 248, P32 N.E. 20 2.1 (P3284 DiBeI.Is
muss either oaynient of a debt or a )-eitier: lot,. 160 Misc.2d oPt. 995. G30
means by which to avoid termination, of the N,YS,2d 848, 848 (N.Y,Co,Ct,199fu, More.
lease. It is manifestly both. over, a tenant can avoid the eviction re
ia; by paving the oared rerrt.Altheeugh
We therefore hold that, under the FDCPA,
hack rent is debt. Heiberger is correct that the notice required
711 is a statutory condition ux-eceder,t to
711 Notices involy Debt (oilccc jon commenvin a sumtnar cstctxetn oroceeding
possessory in nature, this does nof
121 1-leiberger argues that because its that is
the notice is mutually exclusive
threeday rjctice was sent in connectIon an) xi mean that
co;Iectuon.
a ccasessozy iii 1cm action under Article 7 ox with dent
the New York Real Property Actions and The facts surrounding an Article 7 sum-
n
Proceedings Law, it is not a .nn.ca_a marc proceeding [rove nothing shout
to codect a debt and theareibre: does not fai er the notice that Rornea received frotn Heib
under the provisions cf the FDCPA, .Article erger was or was not a communication sent
7 etab1ishes a summary proceeding to in connection with the collection of any
cover pssesslon or eai propeily. A land debt, 15 U.S.C. 1692e (10 4), &rhafrver
lord may bring an Article 7 proceeding to else it was, the 711 letter that .Heiberger
sake rossession of an apartment on. the basis sent to ito-ursa was rcndeniabiv a con:muni
the tenants failure, to rent only if a
-

cation as defined by the FDCPA in that it

demand of the rent has been .made, or at
conve.yed information regarding a debt. to
Jo.
another erson,cc. 1sc92ur2r. And Mcvi
in the attexxiauve. the navuverat 0 te rent, or erger nmkes no attempt to deny t.hat its aim
the possession a.if the uremises, has been in sending the letter was at least in oart to
Pc
N. id *raTh,
.
se a, tulle
ice-cc cc l, onrs ocr; the

cdiv owed. As a result. the fact that the

a
[3. 41 Ph uld the court nsucn procee d ettoral SO stcrvetl as a 0 versa yuisi-.i.:e to coin

ao.u c.neo ts:oae -sri rrant ent.cnn.ng sri e ane irrclevan S to t:ne icequsresrents a.n.o ap(.Sie.ahi
),5c u ot Is. q-rre t itv of thr FDCPA.

canoes it- aro ttnoii)atos. tito an

a.ai5cu a (01.)
t.nac its iherarer i:etlt to it.cdti C
t.t
a)Iv nt: c-eta iiiv ,o.oe,m.. 5 74k -

cit. eta
.50 recover :-flri) rent
ynT

ma lar:oli.on may

5,50-. aauvrs.;.ar a-il

I re ,-:ct*:ca aS.:,
trot irsavel S :71, a 0*0:

it 1)1 u)fl)i . Ito a! _, cv se -:N0.I

a (
 ItOEViFA V. HEIB.ERG1:R & ASSOCIATES
Core-as toS 430 0 02nd tir 0995:

101000cn wholo norvioot: or the rant c-nt of I-lw- notoce of oct-h--ion 0-::.:!.

Anti Re-oherc-ut.er nifo-cu tOO 01-01

flu e (:10101110:-i woth the indicial the eetrli000

I ii 14 .0 00.0 tfl.:: 0:1. r.: (us Of: nruo.t U to. U 1 1 t

11 0 :1:011 1 01 sot 010110 1.01. itS 1 c.

*oi::
: :o
:-lo0 04 thou: cur:.: e.-r-t :t::Etc- 10..
1. H 111:0 II 0

:11111-1 I11 fl.::n5rP (1: :o.r00H--o

- 110 0
fl htitt e lailn.s hat

sort to-ti t90-- t,.tt to cot: 4 he 71

that Congress onten-ne t-o ntoy tile 0*000:4-

lena! r-rocosr63 For t.his. reason. Htjeinte tour: ounP- to: e 55 rood :oot to

-
1o:: urine of s:tt:t tin: 1000(110-0 i:.o

tictos soch as nonce ree ron-co ho 6-PAPL o-:as cer:ed c-:n the consurnr-r. Tho ianoonaue
r- It t4

-.

161 Under New tort Woo, nowecer, perc-:en t Cv while serc-ing or atre-rr.ering to
1 notice is a :re eeouirite to, rather than It--nc:! (W0- : 00 ti.L-:o nflee.
0 0101 of. an Xr90le -roceedina. The
rather, 4
three-day notice is not- a pleadin g; ILAC,C.A,N, 1695, 1691198 (T90 terra debt
IS a notice to the to to Sot otto at 0011 st be tort-
collector iS tOt fitt00000 10 flu ode
01 -
-

done to forest all a surnina ro pi-ocoecnn cessser-o--ers.IJ By exemp ting front ilSOui ty
ft;90 t o. J.fo , 190 Misc.2d who
Ii). Aasoto under the FDCPA those ind!nid trals
inip
175. 179, 1-3 NYSId 441. 444 iNY rilc10ten0010 on toct inc_-tIc r
Un Ut 149 ad .0 no, iii itt 1q4
Oon was Imuted to servon g the cutnrn-onnlca
soow it Scoullar 169 Misw2d 292. 293. 650 or oct 10 in
U 011 toil- tile (tie S to ooei -0 -

N.Y.S.2d o7. 68 :NY.SurxApn.Terrn 1 n96 mp101 nise

noessoenge is 115ong 1055 lini. not-
(referring to a 711 notice as a predocate tiin FDU-P Aharot ections.
(he strength (it
for a summaro ErVic:tion ptue:ttteilrgZ Ye.
u-c 443 It- read Coogress. in-stead, :05 liaonL eal en
166 Mistn2d at. 1770178, 632
is the statutnr; out a wholesale, exemption for anyone who
([Tjhe three-day notice . - -

-renaore a c1:ncc.uouu::-uo{:: 000 ttri

pretneare torn summary nonpayment pro- O1)(ntt
J0&i010. 30 holative o:f tiito safeguards that the
ceetlingi; lf-I 0./SQ fltflIeflt(Yfl
F,Sd 307. rIO 2d Cfioi904) (holding that- or affords debtors----- tist- because t-he conrnluni
cati tin all:: se roe 0 - t no e- : sm
711 letter cannot fairly he considered liti
C--,o - -

gation actinity that would fIt o$thi- an ex as a prt-ireeuls:te to h-eg inning: a coon-f :-:r-o
ception for litigation that the defendants rI:- ltietilrrg. ortrai.o [:01 :001*

505(00 :sflotiJo tie read into the FF6163)

an:I: iangnage; it n-u old also) 50000 na-lean 1-i :1 imp-a Ito-:
i-hat- Wflr sebseonently roiected by the -Sn the st-at te n-on: reonerivnnr toe nsscraef t-o
it14
toronto Court on t0--i:- 7. oIfo:.s 1114

29: 115 54 1454. 131 LE:dlc i bYe (1905):.

Aooe-cn-diniol-or. -we fond nop tb-c
cortocie- 7 :.op:-c 1000 e*-cn-dos that. 11 uu:0::
-0 -
-

p0-rue 00(11130 coo no 00 once :1 11 net: 1 ctr.

Ii 71:1. r oticer A: at. i--i eonerge-r t: eat to) lion-- ea.
-

notice of oet:toon: N.Y. Real Prooc Acts.

.5: toe: aol: 1:::: :01:10.. cOle_c :1:0 *0:-si *0*
La..o: 11
: : M:itho:oeo :9711: & 01010011
-

Ho-hoe:o-ge:-s: :1ir0::ue03*r11
:0055 arid :-ue00110so
S0::- (0-1001) 1111, (:settong tort-h requioernents. for

6, Jo_or :1c 50(0511, :100boo leo-el: to--:

:0 one:: tail. et rh_on lust :11 jelitern oF ouch a e:e:co;o-i,co it

- po: son ooi::o totes coot-
1
an : no
-U-: Icc- -to: :1 1:

coo not on ruIn: : cdt: lets 00 \-:nt:: cc. 5ileari:

:1 lli::001i100_r n:-adc: Or: e::nrto trio:::- cc:: on
-

::*v o on -c :0 r rd S
:- 0: Jo: OnrUSH-_ic,
to -:uifl :--. 1cr-c
ecooc :ntc--:i rit -u

in -h-oh:-: e-. :d u:- do: : 00 o:sso-rred It 11 at-.

-c
Sri He 0:100:: tOn
-
-

do-c- another
:54 St 4 !oe2alo)1109-.ti
 118 163 FEDERAL REPORTER. 3d SERIES
notice example. it is easy t.o imagine a situation in
extended beyond mere serrice of the
which a debt collector sends a 711 notice
Ronoea,
on 5
that corn lies with New Yorks requirements
& Consequences but still contravenes the purposes of the
FDCPA h;: using abusive or coerctve tech
[81 In enactin Article 7. the New
\p
niques to convince the tenant to pay the back
legislature thought it appropriate to nre rent. (U. State- 8-26 :isuc.e. 11(1
scribe ce.rtaxn 1 pro
u cec
ra l reouwements for
Nlisc2d 901, 903, 456 N.YiLkd 604, 606
landlords se.oking to t.erminate t.he landlor& tN.Y.Sup.1982 noting, in a ease involving
tenant relationship. Later, Conasao-ss decid alleged harassment of tenants by a landlord
by
ed to protect consumers who owe money s.eel-nng to convert an apartment building
adopting a different, and in pan more stit
into a cooperative, that [alt least one tenant
gent, set of reoufremnents that would constri was repeatedly sued for nr.in-payrnen
ti.l
t.ute minimum national- standards for debt -p suls
1
fl ee e cAmel than issud o ,vmtl
fully
collection toacticesi Heiherge.r force drawn on proof r,obnmated joy the tenant tnat
argues t.hat the combined effec t. of appl ying ,2d
prote ction s t.he rents had been paid), offd, 93 A,D
00th the New York and federal 1008. 402 N Y.S.2d 524 1st bet 198W
. At
was. more than either Congress or the New ying the
least in those ciroumstances, appl
York legislature 0 intended) Even if t.his ents F. addi tion to the
FDDPAs recuirem
were s.o, the possinibty does not em.power us requirements. of the Artic le 7 proc ess may be
to disrega.rd the plain language of the necessary to aenbeve the FDC PAn goal of
FDCP.A unless the result is absurd or direct protecting consumers from unaccepta ble debt
te.
lv contravenes. the- purpose of the statu ecdlectienuractices
sel. 311 U.S. 504, 510- -
ace He[verin.geilu.mai on of
.Ed. .303 (194 1) (noti ng In a final attempt to avoid applicati
1, 61 aCt. 368, 95 l. 0
5(0,iijJ(,
u(esoel
e
that courts may depart from a pith n-languag
01 iJr
PA is
ce of states that [tUe purpose of the FDC
reading of a statute. where acceptan unp rop ereo r.
rd to protect the consusno r from
that [literall neaning would lead to abs.u h are
collection actvrtoesnone of whic
results or would t.hwart the obvious our ose
ens iegei to i-or.:0 oct-rn-red here. But tnis
of the statut.eA; Solute r. Stratj2ird Gre.
253, 297 (2d mnent fails on two outs
(.lo- role to Jpo4u:to. 136 F.3d
Firso, whether t.he 711 no-mice sent ito this
Gin 19-98)- (citation omtteur-
no
Applying the Fi)CPA to 711 notices
wneth00r the Fri CPA shouts appi .v toil 711
not b-ad to absurd cons.eooences, For
- - 0 . . -0. .

r001 :000-
go 500-u00:a. xm:ao,c:o0
:V(1i(0(rl (00181(00(0 0100 0500nigons (it boO-
ore 1,:osi w- oc also rrioco Hcibo:-r-
,tsct ,errowso:n
awn:nt ova;:
Icadiow ogle I. 01 (0,:to. 1.0, :1 PA. (lie)
109200. .se.np os k;-rn::: i ego
:
i
0
::o .:.:2 0g:v 0: **-0 nrC 1* USo. 5
00 - :000:0. 0:0 r:.:0

One am Ann-, wool: sOvot

10:: 00.) Mv 001000(0.0: :, dubs end
.-c 11,:

1*, .:o.-. -
0::-
....

:0:,):: ye 0:0 ::))i-00(:

0: 0-1 ..:fl) 101:

0.: 0010 :0:0

:0*05 1 o::0 :1(01 10:0,,

oil 0 1*00110. 0:1-5 0 :0:0,1. - l0lO :0::

:1(0-10 0:11-
on 01 .01:000000* ::,:.-r-a 050

0__.
0100: .. :-:.e11y_0J, 1,110:00)0,

:oglle100u-, .(-oe: (11 :00 :rSo II:

000.: 0- 0 1(1,1)0
-: 1
0.::y
:.:n 0. .0-:
a; :100. -;

1 :0-..:: :1: :1*.: .-:ln*

--ill
14
 CRITENhOOfl v 5T4fF: C FFICIt CF )IENTA,L HEALTH I 19
osteas 103 COd 119 .:2fld Cm. 1995)
A: ocu: ii,:e,: h:
A ihor; C REF,Nt,l4iCi li. 51.11.
0
it aicuhir -ri notice is unuccensiiry us Plaintiff-Appellant.
of t. he. FCC Pit, AsseT this

Inc 5;;re ( u--c-ks (i-Ilk,

sh; cute. H dii Health; itlauhititan Psychiatric Ccii

ot: s-iou s. put- 1050: ti. tis
tu
4 Michael H.
t..e.r: GaIn-taT lAir. APR
TOO cc- Fcc

sac:: i.gwa.r .Hittc&i0T rag diode-h. TiLL: ikilic Mautner, AID.;

rxsm it is the provisions, ot the FDCPA Kenneth Kahaner, Mdl; and Ruby Cm
hen P:-v-tur t_,SW-. fl-c fcndantsAppcl

ft-:iral law, if the statute nuphea to H eibes No, 9(1-9261,

gers letter and the letter does compl not

1- I.)CA 5,

lection a.ctivity under cdera law.

Argued Non; lii.
I

ILL

We hcdd (1 that the back t.hat Roust-. rent. t.on:ov staff s:chiatcist at st.ate pi
aiiegeo;y ecceci itscie:a for onhososes of a-
FDCPA that cue t: 711 three-d ay notice: other s t.aff tine t.ors, ailegi ;gti at. t.h cv
Heiberger sent to Romea was a Thominumea deprived him of property and liberty inter
I vcpnt p vcp a ,h t cr el

of opnt 7j h5C. f ihPde :1tJ91c tat

that tile Fl)CPAk; exception for a erson iudgnient. The United States District Court
while serving or attemptine to serve lend for the: Sout.hern District of New York, lvii
process on ant hues oei< s-n
wish the e nttccmcct 0 ;oti0; Psychiatrist -vitsi:c The
does not exempt Heiherger front the Appeals, Calabresi, Circuit Judge, held that;
FDCPA. Id. ii ltih2ad;LIDi: and [4) t.hat an 0,T9C a i, nO

ohing the i.DCPA to tic uergct-s [I ShOt do

I i-Ott oes -vi CeO I fl A C-
at psychiauists property interes.t in
would allow tim to disregard the statutosy CS a c aol ud nec ade a
hi tisi-000 Lit-S

art it not cn- lv; Si: is t- :cr

to dismiss fl.umeis cotuplaust. 550th deonratan.: of cinico prwilegta, gave

Ce t : lihe; t v in ore rotc etc ci bvo it e

ansi; auecco uenr;::auoi; tacit-nt

ci

r A

.i.cteu:-:c 0 :tUti0000 -:101:

goverim: ortictat h-nm clvii i;:abi.litc itS he

 Ni OF
1 EQ

I John Iiler
-

3053 Fillmore St. Suite 245

2 1 San Francisco, CA 94123
I Tel: 415) 933-4)269
Fax {415)74-I992
h-mM]
-
-

Defendant In Propria Persona

Alessandria Fonseca
6 822 North Point St.
San Francisco, CA 94109
7 Tel: (415) 933-0270

8 Defendant In Propria Persona

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORMA

10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LIMITED JURISDICTION -

11 CFung Cheng Kao ) Case No. CUD-15-653742

2 1 Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AurrioRiTiris
IN SUPPORT OF MO LION FOR
3 . RECO1JSIDERATION fCCP ti 1008]

John Miller, Alessandria Fonseca and

Does 1-50 ) Date: December i2 2015
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Defendants. ) Location: Dept. 501
16 1 ) Judge: Hbn, Ronald E, Quidachay

17

18 1 A. STARrUORY BASIS FOR MOTION

19 Californ.ias Code of Civil Procedure 1008 provides:

10 1 (a) When an. app[.ication. for an order has been made to a (udge, or t.o a court, and refused in
irP o grantea or 91
r onditionalw 0 r rn n pervi all 0
e
the order mac.. within. 10 deer a.ft.er service upon tile r,artv *0 *cntten notice of entry of
tOP order ens! noes d ut.on new or *1 iifrenY tarts crmn*si.ances, or Ta
. 3ts

- -- -

*1 .- -

0 -

-0-,

* o tr e it or u, .tn.s tar 0
...:., ..

. . I

_ ,t tetiat 10*0 *. *15 rnad*t helen ., .oO sober 0i V

 order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law
are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made
on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on cx parte motion.

(c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to
reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different
4 order.

5 (d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as
allowed by Section 1281. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be
6 revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court
in which the action or proceeding is pending.

(e) This section specifies the courts jurisdiction with regard to applications for
8 reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all
applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous
9 j motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final.

10
if No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may he
considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.

Ii (F) For the purposes of this section, an alleged new or different law shall not include a later
enacted statute without a retroactive application.
12
l (g) An order denying a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to subdivision (a) is not
13 J separately appealable. However, if the order that was the subject of a motion for
reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable
14 as part or an appeal from that order.

15 11th) This section applies to all app iications for interim orders.

16 i B. Backound Facts

17 (in November 9 2015, thi.s Court denied Defendants Special Motion to Strike

conrendn that: Movrng pafty failed to sustain its burden under CCP 42516 and sbev. that

19 th..is action arises: nut of protected activi.tyd. As such, [.efe-ndant joh.n Mi.IIer is bertha entering

20 1! i.nto evidence 47 pages of text messages between himself and. the son of the l.andord and

21 Plaintiff this cornolain.t carding the colloc.t.ion of i.llagai fate 5

tw and not properly crediting,
- r

rcgc i.t.:*ar .Hcw ads: ...ir;iflc ii-.. held .: ::ra: U. :gn idaintiff croci tather

Ccdema.n Kao wbro forced Defdnda.nt to sign over the pin.k slip to h.i.rn. and then was- on.ly

croci fc.g titer :dOn( U Pd iowa rds arePic Ic tha .as wort at iea.st -i-dtTfXX?-. [ht:tse acre

I 9,,
 I Miller disputed the validity of the $20,451 claimed as due under the 3 day notice dated and

2 served October l3 2015 for failure to credit all of the illegal

late fees and failure to credit for
3 1 the 56M00 in merchandise received In lieu of rent, and failure to properly credit the true value

4 1 of his 2008 Range Rover Sport towards the rent due. As part of Defendants Statutory right to

5 receive debt validation and debt verification, Defendant John Miller requested an itemized

6 ledger of the payment history from the Plaintiff as part of his statutory right to receive debt

validation and debt verification pursuant to 15 USC 16

2L).
9 In response to the Defendant
I
S [ John Millers dispute letter, Attorney for Plaintiff sent a letter dated October 21 2015, where
9 the attorney attempted to verify the debt by stating that the amount due was at least $20,451,

10 and signed the verification itself, even though the statute requires the debt collector to obtain
11 verification from the creditor, and even though attorney verifications are only permitted inter

12 alia under California law only if the attorney has actual knowledge of the facts being verified,

13 I which is not the case here. Defendant John Miller contends that the instant complaint for

14 unlawful detainer was filed as a direct consequence of the statutory request for debt

15 verification and debt validation, precisely because the Plaintiff did not want to provide an
I6 itemized ledger of the payment history because it would e<pose the collection of illegal late

tees 5 fkc Plannhf r th c ace fhereb% making e 3 Ia nce ucgal n that it odu ml
18 illegal Ia.te fees.

19 As such, I arm respectfu.lIy requesting that this Court Fecons:ider its rul.ing of November
it) 0 2015 and Strike the Complaint for Unlawful Detain.er in this matter. in the ait.ematine. I am
LID Ill :r:n ID 5 DL. Used :5 50 550. at 1 5 rI: tI I I lift 0 :0 LVI. a It or on .5 sIt: so clan

s a: rid n rt I 5:: C
5111511.0 :.:a so 1.15 is :: :5 r t S 5.3 r sir .51 5c.> LV tser 9 3 -

Ii
13 L file sri Answer iLl -m case.

LV,

1
;T

28
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

-3 I, Aftab A. Malik declare:

4 1. I am not a party to the above captioned litigation. My business address is: P.O.
Box 421067- San Francisco, CA 94142
5
2. On November 16 th
2015, I hand delivered the Motion for Reconsideration and all
6 supporting documents by hand delivering them in a sealed envelope to the
address on the envelope as follows by leaving it with the receptionist at the
7 office address listed below:
C
Ronald D. Schivo, Esq. Tel: (415) 357-0600
Utrecht & Lenvin, LU Fax: (415)354-3485
9 109 Stevenson Street 5 Floor
-

San Francisco, CA 94105

loll
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the
II foregoing is true and correct.

12t Executed at San Francisco, California

Dated: November leN 2015.

I I

l8

9
-4)
 UD-105
FOR COURT LISt WILY

AflORNEY (nt Sta SW nether, end edteteer

tx PARrY WPNOUI
ndria Fonseca
John Mifler & Messa
822 North Poi nt Str eet
94109
lEan Francisco, CA EN DDn ED
(415)933-0269
rAAiJ, t415)3741992 ..FIL[5o
ar$fl4ot
5414k 4OOR5St iohnllec
,tnernm
i orla Persona
snoe*e o &m.r In Pro
OF SAN FRANCISCO NOV N ZN
CAUPORNIA, COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT OF
Street
erto. M)OPESW 400 McAilister lflTI
rv .-.to
.iAfltjflG AOWt5SS
sco,CA 94102
crrktrncooc-. SanFranci
rirwrcai ash et CM c Ce nte r Courthouse Crepury 9
uc er

Ptair,tJW Chung Cheng Kac 0

ia Fcroeca and DOES 1-5
Defendant John Miller, Aleasandr

L DETAINER CUD15-853742
ANSWERUNLAWFU
er attorney
this answer unless his oth
ans we r is file d mu st be named and must sign
tar whom this
Defendant (each defendant
ler and Alessandria Fonseca
-

sgnsi- John Mil

ows:
answers the complaint as foll
t two boxes: nt demands more then
Z Check ONLY ONE at the nex of the com pla int (Do not check this box if the complai
13 EEL] Defendant gen
erally denies each statement
51,000.)
true EXCEPT
the statements of the complaint are
0. F?1 Defeneant adrnit,s that all of state paragraph numbers born the com
plaint
1) Defendant daims the foltoalng statem
ents oi the complaint am false ach me nt 2b( 1).
, titled as Att
or explain below or on form MC
025): [55] Explanation is on MCO25

defendant denies
ng tements of Inc coniplamt are true, so
(2) Defendant has no tnforrnatlon or belief that ti-ia followi sta form MC -d1 25) :
nplaint or explain below or on
them (state Paragraph numbers from the cor
nt 2).
[551 Expfanabon is on MC025 titled as Attachme 2b?

h s-tt bnef ferts to support 115 kern 1k (top of page 25)

toracl you moat 0
IAFFIRWInyI DEFENSES (NO: F or eac box oha
has tirea.-tatc the wen.mte to r0nft,f p habitable prepr
LEE] (rO-praynorn of rant nobfri) P4&ntrtteor nrig coertpft repairs coo orooerty lodircrgft re ore Pore
eO p., 1
errpeyroq J a a or Jefend
not qico pro per trod-ft.,
(nonpaynams o t rgnt cole) Cr, rnstes om&rrrr rrnou to paw uS pst urXp,reC,
toe rant duo hot rrb ind tt cou id cot arrr rar t it
Pro nittY waived ttorarrsrgj or canoete: the notice to quit.
to leer to rftfgrl S j o 0 ,e. a-ore o reran oprrs lerr--
toot
r ieeorc ersceq,uice - toheesrin r
0

c-coo rocer rent

ceo) c-uj icr Possesrrft,p viois-f 0 conical- or aiccftra con Ire) orrfirotrrro) rctvor COunty, stlo
ordrrittn erre arid it, to oft

C3rj brie ify state in .fn 3k he toots rilooring wblst/o,s of the orrbnarrne
r
,if ,rr(e Jo-

0
r ro y o
S ,r,- rr-r-y

ritO 9X.,iicjo-i 3 to 40
restrain/np order nrote.rftr-p crd.r- orooic rec nra more Iher iPo i/a vs sfr reoo ceo ricrr-nrtg -rt or Vt) Ut ho usa.hrrrd
,
8 e . -,
rnombr rh-c 1
,
0 flrare
y
0 u/otto, of these or/race)
)- 555 Ott-icr affirmative detensco are staler) in item 3k.

r- 0
r.
- -- ,- a (or)
0
Pi
L25 On;
 LID-los

e
...

3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (conrd)

It, Facts supporting affhimative defenses checked above (klenrn facts for each item by Its letter from page 1 below or on (con
MC-025):
C] Desc.iptlon of facts is on MC025, titled as Attachment 3k.
Unclean Hands Defense Charging illegal and unconscionable late fees at $3%000 per month up to $9000 per
-

month S,zikwt 43 cnly wd erv3 Jet. $-4? v4k.t

- ftAwa 4 acun
4 AktSidnst Rncxa
4. OTHER STATEMENTS TWn IC) rcJsc,f 16911) ant totS
a. [E] premhies on (data):
Defendant vacated the
b []] The fair rental value of the pni alleged below or oh kwni MCO25):
[E] Explanation Is on MC-025, titled as Attachment 4b.

c. [7]] Other (specEfr below or on (cnn MC-025 in attachment):

[EjOther statements are on MC-025, titled as Attachment 4c.

5. DEFENDANT REQUESTS
a. that plaintiff take nothing requested in the complaint
b. costs incurred in this proceeding.
c. [7]] reasonable attorney fees.
d. [I] that plaintiff be ordered to (I) make repairs and correct the conditions that constitute a breach of the warranty to provide
habitable premises and (2) reduce the monthly rent to a reasonable rental value until the conditions are corrected.
a. [1] Other (specifrbeloworon lena MC025):
[7]] All other requests are stated on MC-025, titled as Attachment St
Plaintiff should refund all illegal late fees collected, and return the Defendant John Millers 2008 Range Rover

S. Number of pages attached:

UNLAWFUL OBTAINER ASSISTANT (Bus. & Prof. Code H 64006415)
7 (Mast be completed in eli cases) An unlawful defamer assistant [>]
did not LEE did for compensation give advice or
assistance with this form. (If defendant has received any help or adVice for pay from an unlawful detainer assistant, state):
a. Assistants name: b. Teleohone No,:
c. Street address, city, and zip code:
d. County of registration: a. Registration Nc,: t. Expires on (date):

(Each defendant for whom this answer is flied must be named in item I and must sign this answer unidss his or her attorney sign.s.)

OR t 5555 . :sossrons or OttrEttOnn on snonnsct

rit
.500tssanooos 000sn 5 F V

.,-,-

VERIFICATION
(Use a different verification fore. if the vshhcation is by an attorney or for a oor.x ration or partnership,)
c cot cjon r, no e niaR 5 r 20 r5,
0.aiifornia that the torngoinc: is t.n erred sorted, Dote: No.vrtrn.h:er 4th 21)15

tTYPS 00 must nrrsn t555AT55 00 000nrsnrxrl

tSJRtj isnusn 2, 20141 2
ANSWERUNL4WFUL DETAINER
4d&
0
Aicss l20(Caa rss%
_v1__
 Notice of Appeal/Cross-Appeal Ctm* stamps date oem when hi-n, (tied,
APP-1O2 (Limited Civil Case)
Instructions
This form is only for appealing in a limited civil ease. You can get other
forms for appealing in unlimited civil cases at any courthouse or count law
Nbrary or online at tswa courrs.ca.govfrarma. NOV 152015
Before you till out this form, read Information on Appeal Procedta-es for
Limited Civil Cases (form APP-l0l-JNFO) to know your rights and
responsibilities. You can get form APP-WI-INFO at any courthouse or
county law library or online at www.courrs.cagovrforms.
Vao ftP in the name and street ahkacs o(the court
You must serve and tile this form no later than 30 days after the that court that issued the j:udgniont or order you am
or a pam- serves a document called a Notice of Entry of the trial court eppe&uq:

udgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment or 90 days after entry of Superior Court of California, County of
judgment, whichever is earlier (see rule &823 of the California Rules of
San Francisco 400 McAllister Street
-

Court for very limited ertceptionsL If your notice of appeal is late, your San Francisco. CA 94i02
appeal will be dismissed.
Fill out this form and make a copy of the completed form for your records
and for each of the other parties.
You itt! in the number and name of the teal court
Serve a nmv of the completed form on each of the other parties and keep casti in whrch you are appealing the judgment or
order
proof of this service. You can get information about how to serve court
papers and proof of service from What Is Proof of Service? form APP- 109- (Trial Court Case Nuniberfl
INFO) and on the California Courts Online Self-Help Center at wwwcvlrrs, CLD-l $-65P42
ca.govssc!Ihdp cenutg.hrm. Trial Court Case Name:
Take or mail the original completed tbrm and proof of service on the other
narties to the clerks office for the same court that tssued the judgment or Kao v. Miller eta!.
order you ate appealing. It ts a good tdea to take or mail an extra copy to the
The clerk Mid Mgi in the number ba-ew
clerk and ask the clerk to stamp it to show that the original has been filed.
lteOMonCnflfl
6N Your lnformaton

a, Name of appellant (the party who is filing this appeaif

John \Ji.ller & Alessandria Fonseca
S \peitanr A contact infimaation u:kip riAc
the ii
Street address: 3053 Fillmore Street Suite 245 San Francisco CA 94123

Cc S1au4 Cp
Phone: F-mail (jicrvujhthie.L

ratr tlar :omtcr:

S Slate tar. di era

att::,:a:O.,,c. .144:

Phc.aae:

.ILtroa E,c:orctSf*-rfll4, aaarrc,jfls. a4ur

rlevlaral Merah
5
2014 Opacner lOon
nrc.._, :O U.
Notice of AppeaI/CrossAppeal APP-102, Page 1:43
(Limited Civil Case
 Trial Court Case Number
Trial Court Case Name: Kac v. Miller etal, CUD-15-653742

This is (check a or

a, [3 Thefirstappealinthiscase.
ii El A cross-appeal (an appeal tiled after the first appeal in this case (complete (1), (2)! and (3)).

(1) The notice of appeal in the first appeal was filed on (ill/in the date that the other party
filed its noUce of
appeal in this
case):

(2) The trial court clerk served notice of the first appeal on (fill in
the daze that the clerk served the notice of the
otherpartys appeal in this case): -

(3) The appellate division case number for the first appeal is (fill in the
appellate division case number ofthe
other party 1c appeal. ((you know it):

Judgment or Order You Are Appealing

I am/My client is appealing (check a or

a. El The final judgment in the trial court case identified in the box on page 1 of this
form.
The date the trial court entered this judgment was (fill in the date):

Ia. [) Other:

I) FL] An order made after final judgment in the case.

The date the trial court entered this order was (till in the dare).

2) El An order changing or refusing to change the place of trial (venue).

The dare the trial court entered this order was iflil in the dare):

(3) E] An order granting a motion to quash service of summons.

The date the trial court entered this order was ill in the dare)

i4) An order granting a motion to stay or dismiss the action on the

air und ot irconveniert fonam,
The. date the trial court entered this order was i/ill in the dare):

5) An oter granting a new t.riat,

The date die thai court entered this arder was dill in the date):

P date. the trial . .

.njr entered th.is order was i/ill in ih:e date):

7 .ikn red e eran ring rot aI ::a :n no ion i: a, in c :tr:r:: 0 r ,h:.:r

.

.. a a : r::
1 e. dare the in a) ct art ten:7 i:his irder iii tO the in ret:

Notice of AppeaIICrossAppeaI APPO2, Rtge 2 nf 3

Jmited Clvii Canal
 Trial Court Case Number
TrIal Court Case Name: Kaov. Miller etal, 1
CU D4&-653742

IjN (ion tinned)

(8) fl An order appointing a receiver.
The date the trial court entered this order was (till in the dote)

(9) Other action (please describe and indicate the date the Thai court rook the action you are
appealing):
An onkrAenying a SpiaIMotion to Strike made punuant to ((P Section 425.16 on Novem
ber 9th

Record Preparation Election

complete this section only Ii von are/fling she first appeal in thts case. If von are/fling a cros.ca
ppeaL skip this
section and go to the signature line.

Check a cr I (lyon are tiling the first acoeal in this case:

, C I have/My client has completed Appellant s Notice Designating Record on Appeal (Limited
(ivil casey
/form APP4Q3) and attached it to this notice of appeal

b. C I/My client will complete Appellant r Notice Designating Record on Appeal (Limited Civil (asgi
(form
APP-103) later, I understand that I must file this notice in the trial court within 10 days
of the date I file this
notice of appeal.

REMINDER: Except in the very limited circumstances Acted in rule 8S23, you
must serve and file this
form no later than (1) 30 days after the trial court clerk or a party serves
either a document called a
Notice of Entry of the trial court judgment or a fllestamped copy of the
judgment or (2) within 90 days
after entry of judgment. whichever is earlier. If your rotice of appeal Is
late, your appeal will f-c
dismissee,

Data: 4oaember 6t/ 1015

00

77T
--

Notice of AppeaiICrossAppeaI APPtaO2 Page of 3
iLimitad Civ!l Case