This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150) 1 2 3 4 5 6 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Merced Superior Court 8/3/2020 12:37 PM Amanda Toste Clerk of the Superior Court By: Kristifer Hew, Deputy LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. BLOCK A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BRANDON A. BLOCK (Cal. Bar No. 215888) brandon@bblocklaw.com 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Telephone: 310.887.1440 Facsimile: 310.496.1420 Attorneys for Plaintiff JENNIFER MATA 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF MERCED 10 11 12 13 14 15 JENNIFER MATA, Plaintiff, vs. FOUR STAR RECOVERY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, CASE NO.20CV-02185 COMPLAINT FOR TRESPASS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. 16 17 COMPLAINT 18 19 20 Plaintiff Jennifer Mata alleges against defendants Four Star Recovery, Inc. and Does 1 through 25 as follows: Operative Facts 21 22 1. Plaintiff financed the purchase of a motor vehicle for personal, family or household 23 purposes on credit, pursuant to a retail installment sale contract. Plaintiff’s vehicle served as 24 security under the contract. The holder of the contract hired defendant Four Star Recovery to 25 repossess the vehicle, based on an alleged payment default under the contract. 26 2. Two male employees and/or agents of Four Star Recovery attempted to repossess 27 plaintiff’s vehicle on or about May 22, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, by entering private 28 property secured by a locked gate and fence at plaintiff’s residence in Los Banos, California. Four 1 COMPLAINT This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150) 1 Star Recovery’s men did not have permission to enter the secured area at plaintiff’s residence. 2 Accordingly, defendants breached the peace in attempting to repossess plaintiff’s vehicle, in 3 violation of California Commercial Code § 9609 and California’s Collateral Recovery Act 4 (“CRA”), Bus. & Prof. Code § 7508.2(d). 5 3. Plaintiff, a single mother, heard Four Star Recovery’s men outside her house. 6 Plaintiff went outside and observed the two men by her car, without facemasks or gloves, and 7 without uniforms or other identifying information on their clothes. 8 4. Plaintiff asked Four Star Recovery’s men what they were doing there. The men 9 demanded plaintiff turn over the keys to her vehicle. Plaintiff objected to doing so and asked how 10 the men entered her secured property. The men claimed plaintiff’s gate was open, which was a lie. 11 Plaintiff demanded that the men immediately leave her property, without her vehicle. Four Star 12 Recovery’s men refused to leave without plaintiff’s vehicle, in further breach of the peace. 13 5. Plaintiff called the police. The police arrived and instructed Four Star Recovery’s 14 men to leave plaintiff’s property right away, without her vehicle, because they were breaking the 15 law. Only then did Four Star Recovery’s men leave the property. But the damage was done. 16 Among other injuries and damages plaintiff suffered as a direct and proximate result of Four Star 17 Recovery’s conduct, plaintiff had to pay money to have her car sanitized because one of Four Star 18 Recovery’s men went into plaintiff’s car, and she has suffered and continues to suffer great fear 19 and related emotional distress from Four Star Recovery’s men unlawfully entering private property 20 at her residence. 21 22 23 24 Parties 6. Plaintiff is an individual over the age of 18, a resident of Merced County and a citizen of California. 7. Defendant Four Star Recovery is a California corporation with its principal place of 25 business in Modesto, California. Four Star Recovery is a “repossession agency”, as defined in 26 California Business and Professions Code § 7500.2. 27 28 8. Plaintiff does not know the true names, identities, and capacities of the Doe defendants sued herein, and therefore sues those defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will 2 COMPLAINT This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150) 1 amend this complaint to allege the true names, identities and capacities of the Doe defendants 2 when plaintiff discovers such information. 3 9. At all times mentioned herein, defendants were agents and/or employees of each 4 other and were acting within the course and scope of such agency or employment. Defendants are 5 jointly and severally liable to plaintiff. 6 First Cause of Action 7 (By Plaintiff Against All Defendants for Trespass) 8 10. 9 paragraphs above. 10 11. 11 12 13 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of all Plaintiff owned, leased, occupied and/or controlled the property at which her vehicle was located at the time defendants attempted to repossess the vehicle. 12. Defendants intentionally and recklessly entered plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff alleges in the alternative that defendants negligently entered plaintiff’s property. 14 13. Plaintiff did not give defendants permission to enter her property. 15 14. Plaintiff was actually harmed by defendants’ conduct, which was a substantial 16 17 factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. 15. Defendants acted with oppression, fraud or malice, within the meaning of Civil 18 Code § 3294, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 19 Defendants’ corporate officers, directors, or managing agents are personally guilty of oppression, 20 fraud or malice, had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employees who acted towards 21 plaintiff with malice, oppression, or fraud, employed such employees with conscious disregard for 22 the rights or safety of others, and/or themselves authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct. 23 Second Cause of Action 24 (By Plaintiff Against All Defendants for Violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection 25 Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788, et seq. (“Rosenthal Act”)) 26 16. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of all 27 paragraphs above. 28 17. The Legislature has found that “unfair or deceptive debt collection practices 3 COMPLAINT This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150) 1 undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking 2 and credit system and sound extensions of credit to consumers.” Civ. Code § 1788.1(a)(2). The 3 Legislature thus enacted the Rosenthal Act, to ensure the integrity of our banking and credit 4 industry. Id., § 1788.1(b). 5 18. Plaintiff is a “debtor” within the meaning of Civil Code § 1788.2(h) in that she is a 6 natural person from whom defendants sought to collect a “consumer debt” (i.e., money, property 7 or their equivalent) alleged to be due and owing. 8 9 19. Defendants at all times relevant herein were and are “debt collectors” within the meaning of Civil Code § 1788.2(c), in that they regularly and in the ordinary course of business, 10 on behalf of themselves or others, engage in acts and practices in connection with the collection of 11 “consumer debt”. 12 20. The purported debt defendants attempted to collect from plaintiff is a “consumer 13 debt” within the meaning of Civil Code § 1788.2(f). Defendants engaged in acts or practices in 14 connection with the collection of money, property or their equivalent which was alleged to be due 15 and owing from a natural person by reason of a consumer credit transaction. 16 21. Defendants violated the provisions of Civil Code § 1788.10(a) by using, or 17 threatening use, of any criminal means to cause harm to the person, or the reputation, or the 18 property of any person. The crimes committed include violations of California Business and 19 Professions Code § 7502.1(a), by violating California Business and Professions § 7508.2(d), and 20 Penal Code § 602. 21 22. Civil Code § 1788.17 provides that debt collectors subject to the Rosenthal Act 22 collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt must comply with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1692b to 1692j, inclusive, of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. 24 (“FDCPA”). Section 1788.17 further provides that debt collectors subject to the Rosenthal Act are 25 subject to the remedies in § 1692k of the FDCPA. 26 23. Defendants violated the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d by engaging in any 27 conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection 28 with the collection of a debt. By violating the provisions of § 1692d, defendants violated the 4 COMPLAINT This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150) 1 Rosenthal Act, at Civil Code § 1788.17, and plaintiff is entitled to the remedies set forth in 15 2 U.S.C. § 1692k. 3 24. Defendants violated the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by using any false, 4 deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. By 5 violating the provisions of § 1692e, defendants violated the Rosenthal Act, at Civil Code 6 § 1788.17, and plaintiff is entitled to the remedies set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. 7 25. Defendants violated the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) by using any false 8 representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. By violating the 9 provisions of § 1692e(10), defendants violated the Rosenthal Act, at Civil Code § 1788.17, and 10 11 plaintiff is entitled to the remedies set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. 26. Defendants violated the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f by using unfair or 12 unconscionable means to collect an alleged debt, when they breached the peace during the 13 repossession of plaintiff’s vehicle. By violating the provisions of § 1692f, defendants violated the 14 Rosenthal Act, at Civil Code § 1788.17, and plaintiff is entitled to the remedies set forth in 15 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. 16 27. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) of the FDCPA by taking or threatening to 17 take any nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property when there was no 18 present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security 19 interest. Defendants had no present right to repossess plaintiff’s vehicle due to their breach of the 20 peace, by entering secured property without permission and by continuing their repossession 21 efforts over plaintiff’s objections. By violating the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)(A), 22 defendants violated the Rosenthal Act, at Civil Code § 1788.17, and plaintiff is entitled to the 23 remedies set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. 24 25 26 27 28 28. As a proximate result of defendants’ violations of the Rosenthal Act, plaintiff has been damaged in amounts that are subject to proof. 29. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her actual damages pursuant to Civil Code § 1788.17, incorporating by reference 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1), or in the alternative, Civil Code § 1788.30(a). 30. Defendants’ violations of the Rosenthal Act were willful and knowing. Plaintiff is 5 COMPLAINT This e-copy is the official court record (GC68150) 1 entitled to recover statutory damages pursuant to Civil Code § 1788.17, incorporating by reference 2 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A), or in the alternative, Civil Code § 1788.30(b). 3 31. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code 4 § 1788.17, incorporating by reference 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), or in the alternative, Civil Code 5 § 1788.30(c). 6 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. 7 Prayer for Relief 8 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for the following relief: 9 1. For actual damages; 10 2. For statutory damages; 11 3. For punitive damages; 12 4. For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law; 13 5. For an award of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, costs and expenses incurred in the 14 15 investigation, filing and prosecution of this action; and 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 16 17 18 19 Demand for Jury Trial Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury under the United States Constitution. Dated: August 3, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. BLOCK A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 20 21 Brandon A. Block 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff JENNIFER MATA 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 COMPLAINT