Sorensen v. Household Finance Corp.

Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Sorensen v. Household Finance Corp.

Post by David A. Szwak »

Sorensen v. Household Finance Corp.
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2006 WL 3187297
Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2006.
November 06, 2006

OPINION


FYBEL, J.


INTRODUCTION

*1 Plaintiff Mellonie Sorensen appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Household Finance Corporation (HFC) and Collins Financial Services, Inc. (Collins), and an order denying Sorensen's motion for class certification.

The complaint alleged HFC and Collins were negligent and violated the unfair competition law (UCL).FN1 Sorensen contends HFC and Collins, both prior owners of a $2,500 loan taken out by Sorensen, had a legal duty to conduct due diligence on prospective purchasers of the loan before selling it. She argues because neither HFC nor Collins conducted due diligence, they are therefore liable to her under a negligence theory for damages she sustained as a result of the misreporting of her debt by a subsequent owner of the loan to a credit reporting agency, defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Experian).


FN1. Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.


As discussed post, we have applied the undisputed facts to factors considered by the California Supreme Court in Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370 ( Bily ) and Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, and conclude the trial court properly determined neither HFC nor Collins owed Sorensen a legal duty under those circumstances. The trial court also properly concluded the undisputed facts showed HFC and Collins did not engage in unfair conduct within the meaning of the UCL. We therefore affirm the judgment entered in HFC's and Collins's favor.

Sorensen also contends the trial court erred by denying her motion for class certification with regard to her remaining claims against Experian for violations of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA) FN2 and the UCL. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Sorensen failed to carry the burden of establishing an ascertainable class. We therefore affirm the order denying her motion.


FN2. Civil Code section 1785.1 et seq.




SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FACTS FN3


FN3. The summary of undisputed facts is based on undisputed evidence presented in the moving papers and in the opposition to the motions for summary judgment. Although the parties objected to evidence presented in support of and in opposition to the motions on a variety of grounds, the appellate record does not show the parties obtained rulings on those objections. “Because counsel failed to obtain rulings, the objections are waived and are not preserved for appeal. [Citations.] Although many of the objections appear meritorious, for purposes of this appeal we must view the objectionable evidence as having been admitted in evidence and therefore as part of the record.â€
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Post by David A. Szwak »

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Superior Court
138 Cal.App.4th 122, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 219
Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2006.
March 30, 2006
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555
Post Reply

Return to “Re-Aging: Debt Collector's Efforts to Revive Obsolete Reportings”