HOLDINGS: [1]-A successor employer was denied summary judgment on a claim for accrued vacation pay as genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the successor was liable for alleged vacation pay accrued prior to its acquisition of a predecessor; [2]-The claims for unused vacation pay were not time-barred where they accrued at the time the employment relationship ended, and less than a year had elapsed between the former employees’ resignation dates and the date of the instant case; [3]-The claims for vacation pay were not barred by laches where the claims for vested but unused vacation benefits accrued at the time that the employees separated from the successor, and there was disputed issue of material fact as to whether they unreasonably delayed in filing the action; [4]-Summary judgment was denied as to the method of calculating any vacation pay due two of the employees. Parties’ litigation attorneys San Diego appeal.
Table of Contents
Outcome
Summary judgment motions granted in part and denied in part.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff borrower sued defendant loan servicer and mortgage registration system, alleging, inter alia, wrongful foreclosure, violation of 12 U.S.C.S. § 2605, and unfair debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692 et seq. The borrower then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Overview
The borrower had standing to pursue the claims because although the complaint became the property of the bankruptcy estate when she filed for bankruptcy protection, the record clearly established that the trustee had taken an affirmative action to abandon the estate’s interest in the property. Since the bankruptcy proceeding was terminated, the borrower could proceed as the real party in interest. The § 2605 claim was subject to dismissal as the borrower failed to establish either statutory or actual damages. The evidence showing that defendants failed to respond to a qualified written response on one occasion was insufficient to establish statutory damages. The negative reporting to a credit rating agency fell short of showing actual damages in the absence of any evidence that the negative credit rating itself caused damage to the borrower. Moreover, nothing in the case law or statute suggested that the court could mandate statutory compliance by defendants. The FDCPA claim was subject to dismissal as neither defendant was a debt collector. The remaining state law claims were dismissed as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Outcome
The motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend.
