Blog

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on January 10, 2017
On January 9, 2018, Judge Scott of the San Joaquin Superior Court granted our Motion to Vacate Default Judgment and Dismiss the case based upon faulty substitute service. Ordinarily, California law permits default judgments based upon substitute service, but only if the substitute service requirements have been strictly followed. This means the party attempting to serve the complaint and summons must exercise reasonable diligence to achieve personal service, and can only leave the complaint and summons with a competent adult residing at your place of residence or usual address of mailing, or a person reasonably in charge of your place of business. They must then follow up by mailing the complaint and summons to your usual place of mailing.

In our case, Kenosian & Miele sued our client for a credit card debt that the client contends was never his. The bank even confirmed via telephone that they had never issued a credit card in his name or under his SSN. It is still not clear how this lawsuit came named our client. However, Kenosian & Miele attempted substitute service at a residence where he had not resided for years, even though all of the client’s public records proved that he resided in a completely different city. The client did not discover the problem until Kenosian & Miele had already obtained a default judgment and executed a levy upon the client’s bank account.

Because Kenosian & Miele failed to provide sufficient documentation to support their argument that they believed he actually resided at the address where they attempted substitute service, even though they clearly had access to the client’s true address of residency through public records, our motion to vacate the default judgment was granted for lack of proper service. On top of that, because Kenosian & Miele had failed to accomplish valid service within 3 years of filing the complaint in 2012, the case was required to be dismissed pursuant to Dill v Berquist Construction Co., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 1433 and CCP 583.210(a).

If you have been served with a complaint and summons, it is vitally important that you must act on it quickly, because California law provides very strict deadlines and requirements for responding to the complaint. If you have discovered that a judgment has been entered against you already, then it is also vitally important that you must act quickly in seeking to set it aside, because again, California law provides very strict deadlines and requirements for seeking the set aside. It is best to have a lawyer help you through this process, because debt buyers and debt collection law firms usually attempt to take advantage of your lack of experience and knowledge in trying to represent yourself.

Related Tags: Kenosian & Miele, debt buyer lawsuit, debt collection harassment, default judgment, vacate judgment, fair debt collection practices, Rosenthal fair debt collection, riverside debt collection harassment attorney, san diego debt collection harassment attorney, orange county debt collection harassment attorney, los angeles debt collection harassment attorney

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on October 5, 2017
We have recently initiated litigation against Welk Resort Groups concerning inaccurate credit reporting, and we are looking for anyone else who may have suffered the same problem so that we can obtain further information for our investigations. If you have suffered the same problem as below, please contact us for a confidential discussion.

We suspect that Welk has a business practice of sending letters to owners in default of their monthly payments to offer that, if the home owner were to agree to release the property back to Welk, then all monies allegedly owed will be deemed as fully satisfied, but thereafter continuing to report to the consumer credit reporting agencies that the home owner still owes a deficiency balance to Welk without any clarification at all that the deficiency had actually been satisfied in full and that no deficiency can be pursued against the owner.

Clearly, such reporting is factually inaccurate based upon the terms of Welk’s own offer. This has caused our client to suffer harm, because she was specifically denied a new home loan with the new potential lender specifically identifying the Welk credit reporting of a deficiency balance as the cause for the denial. A copy of our complaint can be found by clicking HERE.

Therefore, if you have ever returned a property back to Welk after receiving such a letter, we would like to speak to you so that we can discuss your particular circumstances as well and obtain further information for our investigations.

Related Tags: welk resort group, welk resort credit reporting, welk resort deficiency balance, welk resort collections, timeshare deficiency balance, timeshare collections, fair credit reporting act, FCRA, credit reporting violations, inaccurate credit reporting violations, consumer credit reporting, consumer attorneys, credit reporting attorney, credit repair

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on September 27, 2017
On September 18, 2017, Judge Frazier entered judgment against La Jolla Neurosurgical Associates in the amount of $19,040.00 as a result of their unlawful debt collection efforts. A copy of the judgment can be found by clicking HERE.

The case arose out of unlawful attempts by the medical provider to attempt to collect upon a medical debt that is not owed by the patient. California state laws regarding worker’s compensation mandate that no medical debt can be collected from the patient directly if the medical servicers were a result of an injury that is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the worker’s compensation board.

Unfortunately, La Jolla Neurosurgical Associates began attempting to collect the medical debt from the patient directly, in direct contravention of California’s mandatory laws. The patient’s worker’s compensation attorney even delivered a letter to them instructing them to cease any attempts to collect from the patient directly, and provided them clear instructions on how they could collect the debt through the worker’s compensation process.

However, they refused to abide by the clear instructions and persisted in their efforts to collect from the patient directly. In their collection letters, they used ominous language that clearly misrepresented the legal status of the debt by sternly warning the patient that he personally owed the debt.

By not only misrepresenting the legal status of the debt, but also by persisting in their efforts to contact the patient directly despite having been put on written notice that the patient is represented by an attorney, La Jolla Neurosurgical therefore violated several provisions of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A copy of the Complaint can be found by clicking HERE.

If you or a loved one are being subjected to debt collection efforts that you feel are unfair or unlawful, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and whether you may have a case for formal litigation.

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on September 21, 2017
Semnar & Hartman Prosecuting Equifax For Massive Data Breach

By now, virtually all Americans must have learned about the massive data breach of Equifax that occurred earlier this year. On September 7, 2017, Equifax announced publicly (for the first time) that it had been the subject of a hackers’ data breach in July of 2017, and that the personal and financial information on upwards of 143 million people within the U.S. had been accessed.

All major news agencies have been consistently reporting on this widescale scandal for the past couple of weeks. One need only Google “Equifax data breach” to be inundated with a series of news articles that have been published on an almost daily basis up to now.

This all has come out at a time while there has been a strong on-going push by conservative lobbyists and lawmakers to reduce penalties available under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to eliminate class actions, and to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the cause for protecting and strengthening such pro-consumer laws and federal agencies has been thrust into the public eye.

The severity of this problem should be obvious: Equifax is a company that stores all varieties of personal and financial information, such as bank account numbers, credit card numbers, social security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and much more, and coagulates that information for sale to other companies who claim to have a “legitimate business purpose”, landlords, financial institutions, government agencies, debt collectors, investigators, and more. It should go without saying, then, that Equifax treats people as commodities, because Equifax consistently makes dozens of billions of dollars off this business practice. And by treating such highly confidential and sensitive information as a commodity, Equifax appears to have been far too lax in its approach towards maintain the sanctity and security of this information.

As more and more information has come out, and continues to come out, it seems that Equifax has been the subject of multiple data breaches over the past several years (including one in March that they failed to disclose on Sept 7th), which means that they should have known that their systems are subjected to on-going attacks and they should have taken extra precautions to prevent such a data breach. Yet they failed to do so. By failing to properly inform the public of such breaches, and attempted breaches, they have left people at risk.

If people had been informed sooner, then the people could have taken their own steps to monitor their own information, such as purchasing credit monitoring services from a reliable third-party source in order to receive notifications of new changes to credit files (such as receiving alerts when a new application for credit has been submitted in their name). Also, if people had been informed sooner, then they could have been more diligent about requesting credit freezes to ensure that no new credit applications could be taken out in their name without proving to the creditor that the applicant is truly the person who they say they are.

One is instead left to question how many people did, in fact, become a victim of identity theft during the months that Equifax failed to disclose the breach to the public, and to also ponder whether such identity theft could have been prevented had the public been properly informed sooner?

And now, for all time into the foreseeable future, everyone whose information was subjected to the breach is left to wonder when their information will be used for nefarious purposes by the culprits whose desire it is to commit identity theft and/or stealing directly from bank accounts.

When corporate profits are placed over the concern and well-being of the people, then the people undoubtedly suffer and lose—often-times with such losses being irreparable.

Thankfully, there are strong consumer advocates across the country who are ready to jump in to the battle and continue to fight for what is right in this world. For example, we have recently filed a Class Action lawsuit against Equifax to not only seek monetary compensation for our client, and all Class members, for the damage caused by the breach based upon Negligence principles, but to also request injunctive relief so that the courts can order Equifax to fix its problem. Our Complaint can be read by clicking HERE.

As always, if you or a loved one has any concerns about issues related to credit reporting, whether you have been identified as one of the “effected” people or even if you have something inaccurate on your credit reports, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.

Related Tags: equifax, equifax data breach, credit reporting agency, fair credit reporting act, FCRA, credit reporting violations, consumer credit reporting, consumer attorneys, credit reporting attorney, credit repair

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on August 24, 2017
On August 23, 2017, Judge Miller of the Southern District of California denied a motion to dismiss filed by Ocwen and Impac Mortgage Corp., so that all causes of action remain in litigation. A copy of the court’s ruling can be found by clicking HERE .

In this case, the plaintiffs allege that Ocwen and Impac granted an affordable loan modification, and after the plaintiffs accepted the modification by following all terms required by the defendants they reversed course and refused to honor the agreement while claiming that they had determined the agreement was not affordable for them. The allegations further claim that, after refusing to honor the agreement that the defendants had offered and granted to plaintiffs, they proceeded to reject any and all payments that plaintiffs made in furtherance of the agreement, submitted false credit reporting that claimed the plaintiffs were in default each month in a much higher amount than the modification granted, repeatedly uttered false threats of foreclosure with the apparent intention of scaring the plaintiffs into paying the higher amount and disregarding the affordable modification, and repeatedly claiming to plaintiffs that they were in default in an amount much higher than the affordable modification.

The plaintiffs tried for several years to obtain the defendants’ compliance with the agreement in order to avoid litigation. Defendants then tried to use that against them by seeking dismissal for statute of limitations grounds, among other arguments, but the motion grossly misapplied the law of statute of limitations.

After so many years of being beaten down by the defendants when the plaintiffs were simply trying to do the right thing, the ruling today is a great result that allows them to continue pursuing justice against these companies who apparently are not ashamed of placing their own business profits over the concern and care for their own customers.

Related Tags: ocwen, ocwen loan servicing, impac mortgage corporation, foreclosure defense, wrongful foreclosure, rosenthal, credit reporting violations, foreclosure violations, mortgage violations, foreclosure protection, mortgage protection, fair credit reporting act, fcra

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on June 21, 2017
Recently, in the Northern District of California, a jury returned a verdict of $60 million dollars against Trans Union, LLC (reportedly the largest FCRA verdict in history) based on class action allegations that Trans Union, LLC’s procedures inaccurately mixed innocent consumers with the names of terrorists and criminals with similar names from a government watch list.

Reporter Cara Bayles of law360.com recently wrote about the verdict and explained that, “TransUnion LLC’s credit reports checked consumers against the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control database, which lists terrorists, drug traffickers and other criminals. But, the suit alleged, reports about law-abiding consumers were sometimes linked to similarly named criminals on the OFAC watch list.” Ms. Bayles’ article can be read HERE .

The 8,185 class members were made of 8,185 individuals, each of whom were awarded by the jury roughly $984 in statutory damages and $6,353 in punitive damages, bringing the total award to $8 million in statutory damages and $52 million in punitive damages. The jury verdicts can be viewed by clicking HERE and HERE.

Our law firm is also experienced in handling FCRA violations based upon mixing information between consumer files. If you or a loved one have experienced any similar problems, do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights.

Related Tags: fair credit reporting act, mixed file, experian, equifax, trans union, inaccurate credit reporting, someone else’s identity, false identity, credit denial, false credit report, inaccurate credit report, FCRA

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on April 13, 2017
It is truly unfortunate when an employee is faced with harassment in the workplace, whether the harassment is based on sexual harassment, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or upon any other basis. Not only is it a traumatic experience just to be harassed based on such things, but in the workplace the stress and trauma can be drastically increased. We all have to work, that is a reality. And we cannot just walk out of a job on the spot due to fear of being terminated and therefore not being able to pay bills. When the harassment is handed down by a supervisor, then the stress and trauma becomes even worse because of the fear that you have to submit and you cannot complain out of fear of retaliation or termination.

Regardless of whether the victim is an employee or an independent contractor, such a distinction has no application as to Plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims in this matter. Calif. Gov’t Code 12940(j) protects even independent contractors from sexual harassment. See, Hirst v. City of Oceanside, 236 Cal. App. 4th 774, 791 (4th Dist. 2015), “The Legislature specifically provided that an employer is liable for sexual harassment committed by an employee against an employee or a person providing services pursuant to a contract.”

Furthermore, Calif. Gov’t Code 12940(j)(3) provides for direct liability against the person who committed the harassment undertaken in their individual actions. But it is also well-settled that employers are strictly liable for harassment undertaken by their managers/supervisors, regardless of whether the manager/supervisor was acting as the employers’ agent at the time of the harassing conduct.

A well-publicized case that provides a perfect example of the types of claims in these cases is Fuentes v. AutoZone, Inc., 200 Cal. App. 4th 1221 (2011). In that case, the court of appeal found that severe and pervasive sexual harassment existed, and affirmed the jury verdict, based on supervisors creating an environment whereby the plaintiff was the subject of repeated sexually explicit jokes. This included instructing her to turn around and show her buttocks to customers, spreading false rumors that she had sexually transmitted herpes, suggesting that she could make more money working as a stripper or being photographed for a magazine in a bikini, and engaged in speculation about a sexual relationship between the plaintiff and a coworker. When she confronted an acting manager about the herpes rumor, he threatened that she would be fired if she brought it up again. The court of appeal affirmed the jury’s award of $160,000.00 in compensatory damages, $23,898.76 in costs, and $677,025.00 in attorneys’ fees.

Another well-publicized case that serves as a good example is Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, 63 Cal. App. 4th 1128 (1998). In that case, a jury found the employer liable for sexual harassment based on a firm partner (who was in a position of authority over the employee/victim) persistently leering at, attempting to grope, and attempting to proposition the employee for sexual relations. The employee complained to upper level management, who simply turned a blind eye and took no corrective action. The jury awarded the employee $50,000.00 in compensatory damages, $225,000 in punitive damages from the partner who committed the harassment and $6.9 million in punitive damages from the firm employer. The latter award was reduced to $3.5 million by the trial court. The court also awarded plaintiff $1,847,437.86 in attorneys’ fees and expenses. The jury found that the firm employer had advance knowledge that the partner was likely to harass employees, and that the firm exhibited conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others by failing to take corrective action. The court of appeal upheld the jury verdict and each of the awards of damages, including the punitives, and only reversed with respect to the attorneys’ fees lodestar enhancement multiplier.

Our firm is also experienced in these matters to protect your rights! You can read two complaints that our firm has filed by clicking HERE and HERE. If you or a loved one is experiencing such unfair mistreatment, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and to see how we can protect you.

Related Tags: workplace harassment, employment law violations, sexual harassment, race discrimination, gender discrimination, gender bias, race harassment, gender harassment, labor law violations, FEHA, fair employment, california labor law, san diego labor law, riverside labor law, san diego harassment, riverside harassment, orange county harassment, orange county labor law, employment discrimination, employment harassment

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on April 4, 2017
With shocking frequency, the credit reporting agencies mix the files of two vastly different people to where one person suffers the consequences of another person’s bad life choices simply because they share a common name. For example, Lisa S. Davis published a very well-written article for The Guardian recently that describes the nightmare that she was forced to endure because her credit file had been mixed with multiple other women of the same name. The author’s nightmare included having to falsely plead guilty to traffic violations incurred by another “Lisa Davis”, after the judge threatened to jail her for lying about not being the culprit, so that she could clear her suspended driver’s license (which had been suspended erroneously due to the other “Lisa’s” traffic infractions). For years the author had believed that the other “Lisa Davis” had been stealing her identity, but in reality the system had mixed her identity with multiple other people of the same name. This article can be read in full by clicking HERE

Even though the above author’s situation happened in connection with background checks and the DMV, the “mixed file nightmare” more frequently arises in credit scenarios with respect to credit reports. This is typically discovered when someone is denied credit due to a history of negative credit in his/her file that was incurred by someone else, or receives lawsuits and/or debt collection efforts meant for someone else of the same name.

One example occurred to a Seattle woman named named Julie Miller. She had attempted to obtain credit in order to assist her disabled brother, including her desire to outfit her house to make it more disabled-assistive. She was repeatedly denied credit due to her file containing a long history of negative credit accounts incurred by someone else with a similar name. Her attempts to rectify the situation were routinely ignored by Equifax for approximately two years. Thus, a lawsuit resulted in a jury verdict of $180,000.00 in actual damages and $18.4 million in punitive damages. An article on this verdict can be read HERE

Our law firm also prosecutes these cases. In one matter, the client was denied credit due to his credit file containing a long history of negative credit incurred by his father. Experian did not identify the son as a person, and tagged the son’s identity to the father’s credit file. Thus, when a credit report was prepared for the son (who apparently didn’t exist according to Experian’s records), the report contained only information related to the father’s negative credit history. As a result, the son was denied credit.

When the son attempted to rectify this problem with Experian, his attempts were denied because he was using his own (and true) social security number as his identifying information in his letters to Experian. Because Experian did not recognize him as a person under that social security number (his true SSN), Experian denied every request. Therefore, Experian placed him in a completely helpless situation to where he had no choice other than to file a lawsuit to get his file corrected and get his life back in order.

The lawsuit also involves Corelogic, who is a reseller that was paid by the creditor to obtain the reports from Experian. Corelogic knew the information was not able to be published as the son’s credit history, yet passed the information on to the creditor as if it was the son’s accurate report anyway.

The third video is called: “Defending yourself in a lawsuit”. If you want to learn how to represent yourself, hear about common defenses against debt collectors, and gain knowledge of possible outcomes to your trial, then watch this video. NOTE: Our firm does not recommend representing yourself, as you will be facing an attorney with specialized education and training on how to argue their case against you. While it is your right to decide to represent yourself, we advise that you should have legal counsel on your side in order to not run into a legal minefield full of issues and problems that you may not anticipate.

The complaint for this case can be read by clicking HERE

If you or a loved one is experiencing anything similar, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.

Related Tags: fair credit reporting act, mixed file, experian, equifax, trans union, inaccurate credit reporting, someone else’s identity, false identity, credit denial, corelogic, reseller, false credit report, inaccurate credit report, FCRA

Jared Hartman, Esq. Posted on March 28, 2017
The National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) has released a series of educational videos to help give basic information to individuals who are faced with debt collection efforts and debt collection lawsuits. The information in these videos is very beneficial, and is information that we are happy to discuss further with respect to any particular situation that you or a loved one may be facing.

Keep in mind that these videos were produced with a nation-wide audience in mind, and there may be laws in your particular state that must be analyzed to determine whether the debt collector has (or has not) violated your rights under your state laws.

We regularly handle debt collection defense cases, and we have strategies in our tool chest that may help you or your loved ones when faced with debt collection lawsuits.

Please watch these videos below, and feel free to call us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights.

The first video is entitled: “Dealing with Debt Collectors”. Are you being illegally harassed? If you are having problems with debt collectors, watch this video to learn about your rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state laws.

The second video is called: “I received notice of a lawsuit, what should I do”. If a debt collector files a lawsuit against you to collect a debt, discover what to do next.

The third video is called: “Defending yourself in a lawsuit”. If you want to learn how to represent yourself, hear about common defenses against debt collectors, and gain knowledge of possible outcomes to your trial, then watch this video. NOTE: Our firm does not recommend representing yourself, as you will be facing an attorney with specialized education and training on how to argue their case against you. While it is your right to decide to represent yourself, we advise that you should have legal counsel on your side in order to not run into a legal minefield full of issues and problems that you may not anticipate.

The fourth video is called: “Was I served legal papers properly?” Learn about one of your key defenses. Determine if you were served papers properly.

The Fifth video is entitled: “I have a judgment against me.” If you lost your debt defense case (or did not know it even occurred) and your wages or bank account is being garnished, learn what you can do.

Each of these videos can be viewed on the NACA website, which also includes very helpful information regarding your rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and basic information on steps you should take to protect yourself. You can find this webpage at the link below:

http://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/debt-collection

PLEASE NOTE: Nothing in the above is to be taken as legal advice and is only intended to serve as solicitation for a more in depth consultation. Proper legal advice can only be given after a full consultation to discuss all details of your particular circumstances in a confidential setting.

Related Tags: fair debt collection, FDCPA, Rosenthal fair debt collection, RFDCPA, debt collection harassment, consumer attorney, consumer protection, orange county debt collection, riverside debt collection, san diego debt collection, los angeles debt collection, credit card collection, student loan collection, mortgage loan collection, auto loan collection, harassing phone calls

Jared Hartman, Esq Posted on February 28, 2017
Wells Fargo has recently agreed to settle two TCPA class action cases in Georgia federal courts—Prather v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Case No. 15-cv-04231, N.D. GA) and Luster v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 15-cv-01058, N.D. GA).

In the Prather case, Wells has agreed to pay over $2 million to approximately 446,000 consumers. This lawsuit alleged that Wells had been calling student loan borrowers using an automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) without prior express consent. The class includes all wireless phone customers who received a student-loan-related call from Wells between April 21, 2011, and Dec. 19, 2015, made with an ATDS or with artificial or prerecorded voice technology, in violation of the TCPA.

In the Luster case, the plaintiff alleged that Wells had made calls with an ATDS trying to collect debts owed by two people the plaintiff didn’t know. The Luster plaintiff claimed that he had never given Wells any type of permission to call his cell phone. Wells has agreed to a $15.7 million settlement that would compensate 3.38 million members of the proposed class, if approved by the court. That class would include anyone with a cell phone number to which Wells Fargo Dealer Services made a collection call about an auto retail installment sale contract with an ATDS from April 2011 to March 2016.

Our firm at Semnar & Hartman, LLP are no strangers to filing lawsuits against Wells Fargo for violations of the TCPA. If you or a loved one are receiving debt collection calls from Wells Fargo, no matter what the source of the debt, do not hesitate to call us to schedule a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and whether they have been violated.

DISCLAIMER: nothing in the above should be construed as legal advice. Proper legal advice can only be given in a confidential consultation where all facts and circumstances are discussed in full. The above should only be taken as anecdotal discussions for informational purposes.

Related Tags: debt collection harassment, student loan harassment, credit harassment, Wells Fargo harassment, Wells Fargo fraud, Wells Fargo lawsuit, Wells Fargo collection, Wells Fargo debt collection, Wells Fargo TCPA, rosenthal fair debt collection practices act, harassing phone calls, harassing debt collection calls, FDCPA, rosenthal FDCPA, california debt collection harassment, riverside debt collection harassment, san diego debt collection harassment, orange county debt collection harassment, TCPA, telephone consumer protection act