Legal Memos

Young v. Midland Funding, LLC (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 63.

This is a SLAPP case. An action was brought against a creditor under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and a SLAPP motion was granted in favor of the creditor, but was reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that debt collectors can be liable under the prohibition against false representations contained in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with debt collection for unknowingly making a false representation that substituted service has been effected on a debtor because federal authority provides for liability under such circumstances and CCP § 1788.17 controls the extent of any conflict with the prohibition against legal action when a debt collector knows service has failed. Accordingly the motions should have been denied because the debtor established a probability of prevailing with prima facie evidence that the collector falsely represented substituted service.

Los Angeles Unified School District v. Office of Administrative Hearings (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 208. This is a situation that comes up occasionally when a suspension without pay of an employee is ordered by a school district and in this case the teacher immediately filed and prevailed on a motion for immediate reversal of suspension (MIRS) and received pay during the pendency of the dismissal proceedings. The employee was ultimately dismissed. The District then sought to recoup the salary payments it had made after the MIRS motion, which was denied and the denial affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal determined that the District could not recoup the salary payments because a decision on a MIRS motion under Education Code § 44939(c)(6) is not reviewable. Neither Education Code § 44945 nor CCP § 1094.5 authorizes judicial review of the decision on a MIRS motion either. The final merits decision by the Commission on Professional Competence in a dismissal proceeding cannot properly include review of a ruling concerning a MIRS motion.


Related Attorney(s):
Gregory L. McCoy