• Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 16, 2013
  The TCPA allows you to seek an injunction (a court order for them stop the illegal activity), and also for actual or statutory damages, whichever is greater. Statutory damages are those damages specified by law for a violation. TCPA violations bring statutory damages of $500-$1500 PER CALL. This means that EVERY SINGLE CALL that violates the TCPA can bring damages of $500-$1500. If your number that was called is listed on the Do Not Call registry, you may be able to stack the damages for each call, meaning a single call may carry up to $3000.00 in statutory damages. Actual damages are any out of pocket loss suffered by you as a result of the TCPA violation. For instance, if your job requires you to have your cell phone on, but the incessant calls to your cell phone caused you to be terminated from employment, then you can recover actual damages for your economic loss and emotional distress in being fired. Also, the court in Soppet (see above) has held that the use of airtime minutes on a cell phones constitutes "out of pocket" damages. If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the regulations under the TCPA, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to not more than 3 times the amount of the statutory damages described above. In determining "willfulness", one can look at 47 USC S 312(f). 47 USC S 312(f)(1) The term "willful", when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this chapter or by a treaty ratified by the United States. Although neither the TCPA nor the FCC regulations define the terms "willfully or knowingly", courts have generally interpreted willfulness to imply only that an action was intentional. Smith v. Wade (1983) 461 U.S. 30, 41 n.8. The Communications Act of 1943 defines willful as "the conscious or deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision, rule or regulation." Moreover, the FCC in In re Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. (2007) 22 F.C.C.R. 9453 has stated "Willful" in this context means that the violator knew that he was doing the act in question, in this case, initiating a telephone solicitation and A violator need not know that his action or inaction constitutes a violation; ignorance of the law is not a defense or mitigating circumstance. Therefore, it is clear that, to trigger the treble damages provision to request $1500.00 per call, one need only show that the violator knew they were making a telephone call and intended to make the call However, there is a four-year statute of limitation on TCPA violations, so be sure to document your case in order to build your proof.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 16, 2013
  1. Try to answer your every call so that the call will appear on your phone bill, as most phone companies will not keep a record of missed calls. Even if a voicemail is left, your phone record will not show the call was ever made. The only way to make sure your phone record logs the call is to answer the call, ask who they are, and then hang up on them!
  2. Google the phone number and read what others have to say on popular websites "1 800 notes, "whocalledus" and other website bulletin boards.
  3. Take screenshots or some other photo of the specific caller ID, showing the date and time of call.
  4. Save all voice messages to your computer, as most phones will automatically delete messages after a few days. Saving the voice message is important for proof of a pre-recorded or artificial voice message.
  5. Obtain and save all phone records and highlight incoming calls from debt collectors and telemarketers.
  6. Keep track of the following information in a hand-written diary: 1) date of call, 2) time of call, 3) caller ID, 4) Caller’s identity, 5) Summary of conversation.
  7. Always send a letter revoking consent just in case you have forgotten whether you have previously given them your number. In your letter, simply state, "I do not believe I have ever given you consent to call me. I am hereby insisting that you stop calling me for any purpose whatsoever." Then send this letter via certified mail as proof it was sent, because they will always deny you sent it.
  8. Then call us for a FREE CONFIDENTIAL consultation to evaluate whether you have a valid lawsuit.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 16, 2013
  The TCPA protects calls to consumers’ cell phones, residential lines, and to any number registered on the "Do Not Call List" (DNC). Regarding cell phones-47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(iii): The TCPA makes it unlawful for any person within the United States to make any call using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cell phone line without prior express consent and without emergency purposes. 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The TCPA defines ATDS as "equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C S 227(a)(1). According to the FCC, an ATDS is any telephone equipment that has the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention. Therefore, if the telephone equipment has the potential to be programmed to make auto dialed calls, then it is considered an ATDS and is regulated by the TCPA and the FCC. See Satterfield v Simon (9th Cir. 2009) 569 F.3d 946. Predictive dialers are also regulated in a similar fashion as an ATDS, because they have the capacity to dial numbers "without human intervention", as it is equipment that utilizes lists or databases of known, nonrandom telephone numbers." See Griffith v. Consumer Portfolio Serv., Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 723. It is usually pretty easy to tell if you have received a call from an ATDS, because upon answering the phone you are first faced with dead air, and then you hear some clicking noises, and then you finally hear a pre-recorded voice message or your call is transferred to a live person. The courts have ruled that someone receiving a call with a robotic message is a factor to consider as circumstantial evidence that the call was placed with an ATDS. See Vaccaro v. CVS Pharm., Inc., (Southern District Calif. 2013) 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99991. The TCPA applies to all cell phones whether used for business or personal use, and does not require the consumer to answer the call in order to establish a violation. The only defenses are if the call was placed for emergency purposes-such as the City informing you of an impending disaster, which is very rare-or consent. A consent defense to a TCPA lawsuit against a telemarketer usually arises because you previously gave the caller permission to call you. A consent defense to a TCPA lawsuit against a debt collector usually arises because you provided your cell phone number on the credit application or in connection with the transaction that resulted in a debt. You do not have to actually agree to receive robo calls for a consent defense to apply; it is enough if you simply gave your number to the creditor or debt collector. Even if you just gave your number to the original creditor, then the consent defense still applies to a third party debt collector trying to collect a debt that you may owe to someone else. The only way to prevent this consent defense is if you revoke consent. Revocation can be orally by simply telling them during a phone call to stop calling you. However, they always deny that you revoked consent, so the best way to revoke consent is by sending a certified letter asking the creditor/collector to stop calling your cell phone. Sometimes companies will accidentally call the wrong person, because of how often consumers change cell phone numbers. Even if a company was legitimately trying to call someone who had previously given them consent, but you now have that person’s number, then the consent defense does NOT apply to you because you—the subscriber receiving the unwanted calls-did not give them consent. In Soppet v Enhanced Recovery Co (7th Cir 2012), 679 F.3d 637, the court held that caveat emptor (buyer beware) applies to a company dialing the wrong number and even suggested that the collector seek indemnification against the original creditor (jointly liable) for its TCPA violation losses. It does not even matter if you legitimately owe the debt upon which a debt collector is calling about. Also, callers who have obtained your number from skip tracing (obtaining your cell number from some other source like consumer credit reports or court papers) are violating the TCPA because they did not obtain your number from you directly. Sometimes a company may obtain your cell number by capturing it on its own caller ID, which also does NOT amount to a consent defense. The bottom line, if you are receving calls to your cell phone with either and ATDS or with pre-recorded or artificial voice messages, it is worth your time to contact us to fully evaluate your circumstances to determine if your rights have been violated. Regarding calls to residential lines 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B): The TCPA prohibits "Artificial or Prerecorded Voice" messages for calls to residential line phones. Auto-dialed calls to a residence line are never a violation of the TCPA, because for whatever reason Congress did not write that prohibition into the law. Additionally, this TCPA section only applies to telemarketing solicitations from sellers with which the consumer does not have an "Established Business Relationship" (EBR). If the seller uses a telemarketing contractor who violates the TCPA, then both seller and telemarketer are jointly liable. If you have done business with a seller within the last eighteen months or made inquiry within the last three months, then the TCPA presumes that you have an EBR with that seller, absent evidence to the contrary. Evidence to the contrary would be a letter to the seller or telemarketer requesting that they stop calling you, and this letter should be sent via certified mail as proof of it having been sent (they always deny that you sent the cease contact letter). Unfortunately, calls from debt collectors to residential lines are not illegal, even if the collector mistakenly calls a person who does not owe the debt. A consumer's remedy in this situation would be under the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA), for harassment where the collectors continue to call after the consumer has pointed out the mistake and requests them to stop. Because here is no need to prove that the caller is using an ATDS under this TCPA section. The consumer only needs to show that the call is a solicitation and that seller used an artificial or pre-recorded voice message. Regarding Telemarketing Calls to "Do-Not-Call" Numbers- 47 USC 227(c)(5): This section only applies to telephone solicitation calls. Anyone whose numbers are registered on the DNC list that has received two telemarketing calls within a twelve month period can sue for all calls including the first. It does not matter if calls are live, pre-recorded, or placed with an ATDS. This section applies to calls to both cell phone and residential lines that are registered on the federal or company specific do-not call lists. It is easy to register your numbers on the national DNC list. Simply Google the "Do-Not-Call Registry" and register up to three numbers on its website. You will receive email confirmation of your registration, which you must keep record of as evidence in your favor.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 16, 2013
  The acronym TCPA stands for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and is codified at 47 U.S.C. S 227. Congress enacted this law in 1991 with the intention of protecting individuals' privacy rights, because of the spike in complaints from consumers about unwanted and unrelenting phone calls. In the Legislative Intent and Purpose of the TCPA, Congress found that unwanted automated calls were a "nuisance and an invasion of privacy, regardless of the type of call". Banning these unwanted calls was "the only effective means of protecting telephone consumers from this nuisance and privacy invasion". One member of Congress made the following statements when discussing the need to pass the TCPA, "Computer telephone calls are invading our homes and destroying our privacy". Consumers around the country are crying out for Congress to put a stop to these computerized telephone calls. Congress has a clear opportunity to protect the interests of our citizens, and we should not pass up this chance. Computerized telephone calls are the scourge of modern civilization. They wake us up in the morning; they interrupt our dinner at night; they force the sick and elderly out of bed; they hound us until we want to rip the telephone right out of the wall. These machines are out of control, and their use is growing by 30% every year. It is telephone terrorism, and it has got to stop.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on November 22, 2013
  For two years an Oregon woman tried and tried and tried to ask Equifax to correct the mistakes on her credit report. She discovered in 2009 that information belonging to someone else with the same name was being mixed into her credit report (known as a “mixed credit report”), including the other woman’s birthdate, social security number, negative credit information, among other wrong information. She only discovered the inaccuracies when she was denied a line of credit. The unfortunate woman tried many times to have these mistakes corrected and to have her credit report cleaned up. All credit reporting agencies other than Equifax followed through with their responsibilities. Because Equifax repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and repeatedly failed to correct their mistakes, they were sued for violations that included 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a)(1)(A) & (a)(5)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). These Sections of the FCRA require the credit reporting agency to conduct a reasonable investigation into a dispute lodged by a consumer within 30 days, and to either delete the information if they fail to conduct the dispute within 30 days, delete the information if they cannot verify its accuracy, or modify the information if they discover the correct information. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in damages owed to the consumer for any actual damages sustained as compensation for any financial harm or physical or emotional injury arising out of the violation, or statutory damages of $100-$1,000 for every willful violation, and any punitive damages that the court may allow. Also, a successful lawsuit guarantees that the offender will pay your attorney’s fees and costs of litigation, which means you will not have to pay any money in connection with filing the lawsuit. Because Equifax repeatedly ignored the woman’s efforts to correct her credit report and repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, the jury found them in violation of the FCRA and awarded her $180,000 in actual damages plus $18.4 Million in punitive damages! Read the news reports at the links below:


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on November 16th, 2013
  Debt collectors and creditors often furnish inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies. Even if the inaccuracy is something so simple as putting the wrong date of default, it may still have serious consequences when you apply for a new loan, line of credit, or even for certain professional licenses. Also, the date of default is what dictates how long the negative item will stay on your credit report, and if the date of default is being reported as more recently than what the default actually was, then the negative item will stay on your credit report for longer than it actually should. DO NOT JUST IGNORE IT—ignoring the inaccuracies means they will be able to continue to mis-report the information, which may eventually hurt you in the future. Taking care of the inaccuracy now will help prevent future harm to you. Both the Federal and California laws allow a consumer to sue the furnisher of information, and you may be entitled to receive any actual damages suffered from their inaccurate reporting, or up to $1,000.00 per violation under the Federal law or up to $5,000.00 per violation under the California laws, depending on what type of violation they have committed. HOWEVER, it is not as easy as you might think to sue the furnisher of information under the Federal laws for inaccurate reporting. One of the ways the U.S. Legislature has tried to help the business industry from frivolous lawsuits is that they only permit a private lawsuit if the furnisher of the information fails to conduct a reasonable investigation into disputed information after being notified by the credit reporting agency that you are disputing the inaccurate information. YOU LODGING THE DISPUTE WITH THE FURNISHER ONLY DOES NOT TRIGGER CIVIL LIABILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL LAWS. Only if the furnisher receives a notice of dispute from a credit reporting agency does their failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into the dispute trigger liability for a civil lawsuit. If you only send the dispute to the furnisher and you do not dispute the inaccurate reporting with the credit reporting agency, then you cannot sue the furnisher under Federal law. See 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b). You are also not able to sue the furnisher under Federal laws simply for supplying the inaccurate information to the credit reporting agency. You can only sue for their failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, as explained above. However, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(c) and (d) permit State and Federal officials to enforce the furnisher’s obligation to supply accurate information, and you should report any such inaccuracies to the Federal Trade Commission, the State Attorney General, and also lodge a dispute with the credit reporting agency to begin the process for triggering a civil lawsuit. On the other hand, California laws are more favorable to the consumer. There is no obligation at all for the consumer to lodge a dispute with the credit reporting agency or the furnisher in order to trigger liability in a civil lawsuit for furnishing inaccurate information! See California Civil Code 1785.25(a). However, California laws could entitle you to receive punitive damages of up to $5,000 per violation if their violation was committed willfully (if they either knew or should have known of the inaccuracy of the information). Although there are some hoops to jump through, here is the bottom line if any inaccurate information is being reported on your credit report:
  1. File a complaint with State and Federal officials to enforce their authority upon the violator.
  2. Lodge a dispute with the credit reporting agencies in order to trigger the civil lawsuit process under the Federal laws. If they fail to amend or remove the inaccurate information, then you may have a lawsuit under the Federal laws for their failure to conduct a reasonable investigation after being notified of a dispute. THIS DISPUTE MUST BE LODGED WITH THE CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES.
  3. Also lodge the dispute with the furnisher of the inaccurate information, because if they fail to amend or remove the inaccurate information then you may be entitled to punitive damages under the California laws for their willful violations.
  5. Call us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss how we can assist you in asserting your rights!


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on October 30th, 2013
  There are two ways a credit inquiry can be conducted on a consumer’s credit reports: a hard inquiry and a soft inquiry. A soft inquiry merely obtains the consumer’s person ID information, such as name and address. A hard inquiry allows the requester to obtain information more in depth towards the consumer’s credit (such as who else is conducting inquiries, how much debt you have, when you have defaulted on past credit, etc.). A soft inquiry will not appear as an inquiry on your credit report and therefore will not impact your credit score. However a hard inquiry does appear on your credit report and too many of them in a short period of time can and will lower your credit score, because it looks as if you are applying for too many lines of credit contemporaneously. It is strictly within the decision of the entity conducting the inquiry as to whether they will conduct a hard or soft inquiry, but if the entity needs to determine and evaluate your creditworthiness then the inquiry will most likely be a hard inquiry. Both the Federal and State Fair Credit Reporting laws require one conducting a credit inquiry to have a “permissible purpose” in conducting the inquiry, and both sets of laws establish what constitutes a permissible purpose. See, for example, Calif. Civil Code 1788.11 and 15 U.S.C. 1681b. The requesting entity does not need your permission to conduct the inquiry so long as they identify to the credit reporting agency that they have such a permissible purpose; yet most of them will ask for your approval just to cover themselves in case a dispute arises over their purpose for the inquiry. If the entity does not have such a permissible purpose, then they need your express permission to conduct the inquiry under both sets of laws. However, if the entity conducting the inquiry lies to the credit reporting agency about the true purpose of the inquiry (for instance, telling the credit reporting agency they have a permissible purpose but then using the information for a non-permissible purpose), then you can and should file a lawsuit for conducting the inquiry under “false pretenses”. If the improper inquiry has caused you actual damages, such as being denied a job, line of credit, or purchase money home loan, then you can recover those damages as compensation. If you do not have such actual damages, then you can still recover statutory damages as specified in the law. Either way, attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation are guaranteed to be paid by the party found to have violated the law, which means there is NO COST TO YOU for filing such a lawsuit. If you have any concerns over inquiries being conducted on your credit reports, then you should contact us immediately to discuss the circumstances in detail during a free and confidential consultation.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 8, 2013
  "Your client allowed himself to go into debt in the first place, so it’s his fault for being harassed by debt collectors." We sometimes hear people make this statement when talking about suing debt collectors. People who have never had to deal with debt collection harassment and who have never had to go through the frustrating and unforgiving process of credit repair sometimes just don’t understand how it feels. The reality is, though, that the debt collection harassment laws were enacted by Congress to promote four guiding principles: 1) Truth, 2) Fairness, 3) Dignity, and 4) Respect. No-one wants to go into debt. Virtually every debt is incurred because of some form of economic hardship, such as unplanned-for interest fees, company lay-offs, inability to find a job in a tough economy, or even death or serious illness or injury within the family. Hardly anyone actually incurs a debt with the intention of never paying it back. Although debt collectors try to make it look like debtors are low-life people who had malicious intentions upon incurring the debt, this is almost always far from the truth. Everyone deserves to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect, and deserves to be free from dishonesty and trickery from debt collectors. When debt collectors show no mercy or forgiveness, and fail to treat people with truth, fairness, dignity, and respect, they are generally violating the many laws that govern how debt collectors can operate their collection activities. Such violations undermine the integrity of our society and our economy, and allowing them to get away with simply shows them that they can continue their harassing conduct towards others. Before these laws were in place, debt collectors would often go to the extremes of threatening people with violence, falsely threatening that the debtor has committed a crime by failing to pay a debt, falsely threatening lawsuits, publishing in the media lists of “dead-beats” containing names of people who are in debt, and many other extremely disturbing conduct. These extreme violations are rare today, but they still do happen. Do not let them get away with it; YOU DO HAVE RIGHTS! Contact us TODAY for a free, confidential consultation to discuss what your rights are and to discuss the proper ways to assert your rights.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 14, 2014
  It is very common in the credit industry for collectors and creditors to use robo-calls to both cell phones and land-lines for purposes of debt collection. Robo-calls are when a computer dials a number stored within its system and when the recipient of the call answers the phone they are confronted with a robotic or pre-recorded voice message instead of a live human. The reason for these calls being so common in the collection industry is because it is much cheaper for a company to use a machine to blast consumers with repeated calls than it is for the company to pay an employee to sit at a phone and manually dial numbers multiple times per day. However, if a consumer tells a creditor/collector to stop calling them, then every subsequent robo-dial is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) worth $500.00-$1,500.00 per call. One couple in Tampa, Florida recently obtained default judgment against Bank of America for receiving over 700 unwanted robo-dials in a five year period. Because Bank of America failed to respond to the lawsuit in time, the couple was awarded damages in excess of $1 Million by default judgment. Of course, Bank of America will now appeal the lawsuit, and it is unclear as to how the court of appeal will handle their request to set aside the default judgment. However, the point is clear—companies should respect and honor consumers’ requests that the unwanted and harassing robo-dials cease! A news article by “Good Morning America” describing the lawsuit as well as other debt collection harassment violations by Bank of America can be found here: https://gma.yahoo.com/couple-wins-1m-suit-against-major-bank-outrageous-002552031--abc-news-topstories.html. Additionally, a news article by "The Consumerist" about the lawsuit can be found here: http://consumerist.com/2014/12/11/bank-of-america-must-pay-family-1-million-for-5-years-of-unwanted-robocalls/ , which also has links to the court papers pertaining to the lawsuit. If you or a loved one is receiving harassing phone calls by a creditor, debt collector, or telemarketer despite your requests that they stop calling, do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and what you can do to make them stop.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 8, 2014
  If you or a loved one have been contacted by The Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers and they are claiming to be collecting on an old debt, then you should contact us immediately to discuss whether your consumer rights have been violated. The law firm of Semnar & Hartman, LLP recently filed an FDCPA lawsuit against The Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that an employee named Cheryl of The Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers called the plaintiff at work multiple times and threatened him with a lawsuit on a debt from which the plaintiff was relieved years ago by the creditor. When the plaintiff protested, Cheryl began to threaten the plaintiff with having him served with the summons at work so as to embarrass and humiliate him and also claimed that he will lose the lawsuit if he tries to fight it. She also began to make very derogatory remarks such as asking how it is he can properly treat his patients as a nurse if he goes into default on his financial obligations, and also laughed at him when he said he was going to hire a lawyer. Cheryl also continued to call him at work despite his insistence that they not call him at work. Cheryl’s threats of having him served with a lawsuit at work were also in direct contradiction to a collection letter sent by Carruthers’ office that promised no litigation within the next 30 days. All of this conduct by Cheryl has resulted in the filing of a Complaint that can be read here Further investigation into the debt collection practices of The Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers have revealed a very disturbing pattern of violating consumer rights. Carruthers’ office has been sued multiple times in various District Courts for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for conduct that includes lies, improper threats, and false representations in connection with debt collection activity, such as collecting much more than the debt actually was, collecting on debts that have been stayed by order of a Bankruptcy court, contacting consumers directly despite knowing that the consumer was represented by an attorney, and for conduct very similar to that suffered by the plaintiff above. This disturbing patterns shows that Carruthers’ office either does not care to follow the law or does not properly train his employees despite being sued numerous times. As a result, if you have been contacted by Carruthers' office for collection of a consumer debt, then it is reasonable to suspect that your rights may have been violated. Do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss what your rights are.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on November 25, 2014
  Multiple lawsuits have been filed recently against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. alleging various violations of consumer rights. In one case, the customers allege that they had a home mortgage loan with Wells Fargo in the State of Kansas that resulted in a short-sale, through which Wells Fargo received the benefit of approximately $9,000.00 more than the debt actually owed on the loan. Unfortunately, however, Wells Fargo did not properly update their records, as they suddenly started calling the customers repeatedly and demanding that the customers still owed them approximately $111,780.35 on the loan. When the customers tried to explain that Wells Fargo had already been paid that amount plus an additional $9,000.00 more, the representatives refused to listen to the customers and argued with them about how the customers were wrong. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo reported to the State of California Franchise Tax Board that the customers earned income within the State of California in tax year 2010, which prompted the Tax Board to issue notices of levies upon one of the customer’s wages for back taxes. However, the customers did not reside in the State of California in the year 2010, and the home mortgage loan dealt with property located in the State of Kansas. This lawsuit has alleged multiple violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to seek compensation for the emotional distress caused by Wells Fargo’s multiple incidents of deception, misrepresentation, and attempting to collect unlawful amounts. This complaint can be read here. WF Complaint 1 In another case, the customer had a student loan account with Wells Fargo. The lawsuit alleges that the customer transferred a payment from his Wells Fargo checking account into his student loan account in order to make a payment on his student loan obligation. Thereafter, Wells Fargo’s checking department reversed the payment without informing the client, which caused him to go into default on his student loan account without knowledge and without any fault of his own. The lawsuit further alleges that the student loan department began placing an unreasonable and obscene amount of calls to the customer and demanding that his acceleration clause kicked in to the point where he now owed the full amount of the loan, and the collection agents refused to listen to his explanation of how the default was no fault of his own. After a Wells Fargo representative finally agreed that the default was no fault of the customer and reversed the default status on the account, Wells Fargo failed to properly update the customer’s consumer credit report and maintained that he was in default status, and even reported two derogatory accounts for the customer even though he only had one student loan account. The lawsuit therefore seeks redress for multiple violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the State and Federal Fair Credit Reporting Acts for Wells Fargo’s unfairness at reversing the student loan transfer, misrepresentations as to the acceleration clause being triggered, attempting to collect improper amounts, and failing to properly report accurate information upon the customer’s consumer credit report. This complaint can be read here. WF Complaint 2 Another lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo unfairly harassed the customer’s elderly mother during a time when she could not be subjected to undue stress in her life. The lawsuit alleges that the customer had not even defaulted upon his home mortgage loan, but for some reason Wells Fargo placed at least 35 calls to his mother between November 4, 2014 and November 21, 2014 and claimed that they were looking for her son. The mother repeatedly told the agents that the son does not live with her and she has nothing to do with the son’s home mortgage loan, and repeatedly insisted that they stop calling her. However, Wells Fargo refused to honor her request and maintained their persistence in calling her. The mother was recovering from a recent cardiac procedure and had been advised by her doctor to avoid all stress, and she was also grieving from the recent passing of her mother-in-law. The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo’s persistent placement of harassing calls to her increased the stress inflicted upon her at a time when she should not have had to be bothered by Wells Fargo. This lawsuit seeks redress for multiple violations of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for unfair and harassing phone calls to both the customer and his mother. This complaint can be read here. WF Complaint 3 If you or a loved one are having to suffer harassment inflicted by Wells Fargo similar to the above lawsuits, please do not hesitate to call us for further information as to what your rights are and how you can stand up for yourself. The playing field does not have to be one-sided in the industry of consumer credit. Our nation’s financial super powers should NOT be permitted to treat their own customers in such a fashion and should be taught that they have to uphold and respect consumer rights! As always, any consultation about consumer rights is done free of charge and maintains confidentiality.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on November 21, 2014
  On November 17, 2014, Judge Staton of the Central District of California awarded the Plaintiff Judgment in the amount of $250,500.00 as a result of the Plaintiff receiving several hundred spam text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), codified at 47 U.S.C. 227(b). The lawsuit was filed as a joint effort between the following law offices Hartman Law Office, Inc., Semnar Law Firm, Inc., Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Hyde & Swigart. The Complaint alleged that the Defendant—Cali Grown Collective—began sending spam text messages to the Plaintiff in late 2013 soliciting his business for their medical marijuana collective, and each text message offered discounted rates on various strands of medical marijuana. Unfortunately, however, these spam messages were sent without the Plaintiff’s consent or authorization, and despite the fact that the Plaintiff had never once entered into any business transaction with Cali Grown Collective and never had any affiliation with them in any manner whatsoever. After being properly served with the lawsuit, Cali Grown Collective failed to appear in the case. When a defendant fails to appear in a case after being properly served, the party who served them can pursue default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 55. A default judgment under Federal law means the allegations pleaded in the complaint are deemed true, which then allows the Federal court to enter judgment against the defaulting defendant and also issue monetary relief for their legal violations. A copy of Judge Staton’s Opinion entering Default Judgment against Cali Grown Collective can be found here.Order Granting Default Judgement Because the TCPA provides monetary damages based on the number of violations--$500.00 per violation at a minimum—and because in this case Cali Grown Collective committed several hundred violations despite the Plaintiff’s numerous attempts to make the messages stop, Judge Staton issued Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor for $250,000.00. A copy of the Judgment can be found here. Conformed Judgement If you or anyone you know is receiving spam text messages as a marketing tactic without your consent or authorization, then you have rights that should be asserted against the company. The TCPA is primarily interested in protecting consumers’ rights to privacy and their right to let companies know how they can contact the consumer. If your rights are being violated, then you can assert those rights in a formal setting to seek compensation. Call us for a free and confidential consultation for more information.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on November 11, 2014
  On November 5, 2014, Semnar & Hartman, LLP filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California against Weststar Mortgage, Inc. alleging multiple violations of the law, including violations of the California Military and Veterans’ Code and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The lawsuit is based on Weststar Mortgage's failure to recognize and honor certain protections to which deployed military members are entitled. Unfortunately, however, Weststar Mortgage treated the Plaintiffs as being in default during the very time period that the payments were supposed to have been deferred, and also threatened foreclosure and imposed late fees and penalties upon the account. Weststar even took the egregious step of insisting that the Plaintiffs pay a lump sum in excess of $6,000.00 in order to extend the maturity of the mortgage loan despite the fact that the military law requires such extension upon the maturity to match the time period of deferment. Bottom line, a deployed military member should NOT have to pay a lump sum of over $6,000.00 in order to be provided protections to which the military member and his family is ENTITLED BY LAW. For more detailed information, Read the Complaint here. Anyone who has information about similar or other illegal conduct by Weststar Mortage, Inc. please call us to discuss the details.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on October 22, 2014
  Clark County Collection Service considers themselves "Debt Recovery Specialists" and their operation is based in Clark County, Nevada. However, their name alone raises concerns about whether they are in compliance with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FDCPA prohibits the following, among many other items of misconduct, "The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof." 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). Because Clark County Collection Service operates out of Clark County, Nevada, and when they call potential debtors they identify themselves as "Clark County Collection", it is very reasonable that the potential debtor would be misled and tricked into believing they are being contacted by a governmental entity. Moreover, it appears that Clark County Collection Services has a common practice to fail to send required written notices after contacting potential debtors. Through 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, the FDCPA requires all debt collectors to send required written notices to potential debtors within 5 days of the first contact. Among these required notices are certain consumer protection rights that include the consumer's right to dispute the alleged debt. Failure to send these required notices is an automatic violation of the FDCPA. Hartman Law Office, Inc. and Semnar Law Firm, Inc. have teamed up with the law firms of Hyde & Swigart and Kazerouni Law Group, APC to pursue a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Clark County for the above violations, among others. Read the Complaint here. If you or anyone you know has been contacted by Clark County Collection Service, whether by mail or telephone, please call us for additional information.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on October 22, 2014
  It is often a misconception that repossession agents are not liable for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because they are not actually collecting a "debt" according to the common perception of what a "debt" is. However, the courts do recognize that the FDCPA applies to companies that are purportedly invoking their rights to recover collateral security (property used to secure a monetary debt) as a recourse for failing to pay monetary obligations. For instance, when an auto title loan lists title to the vehicle as being property securing the loan, and the consumer defaults on re-payments to the loan, the creditor usually invokes its right under the contract to take possession of the vehicle itself as collateral. However, it is not uncommon for the repossession company to be incorrect as to when and how it can invoke its rights to repossession. Many courts have ruled that repossession agents' conduct can be a violation of the FDCPA, most especially when repossession efforts are not actually permitted under the law. Some of these court rulings are: Rawlinson v. Law Office of William M. Rudow, LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 173 (4th Cir. Md. Jan. 5, 2012); and Williams v. Republic Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54827 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2010); and Kaltenbach v. Richards, 464 F. 3d 524 (5th Cir. Sept. 11, 2006); and Shannon v Windsor Equity Group, Inc. (Southern District of California March 12, 2014)m Case No. 12-cv-1124-W(JMA). For instance, Hartman Law Office, Inc. and Semnar Law Firm, Inc. have teamed up to file a lawsuit against two companies for many violations of consumer rights, including violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Military Families Financial Relief Act. This lawsuit alleges that one company known as "Skipbusters"-which is an affiliate entity of "Patrick K. Willis Company" -was retained by Alphera BMW Financial Services to undertake repossession of a Chrysler vehicle that should have been subjected to deferred payments during the husband's military deployment. The husband properly invoked his right to deferment of the vehicle's payments in accordance with the Calif. Military Families Financial Relief Act, but Alphera BMW Financial Services unfortunately refused to recognize and honor the deferment that is required by law. Alphera eventually retained the services of Skipbusters to undertake repossession, who then proceeded to threaten the wife with repossession and also threatened that she should not drive the vehicle to the grocery store because they will find her and take it while she is out. These threats of repossession amount to FDCPA violations because repossession could not be invoked during the time that the payments should have been deferred. For more detailed information, Read the Complaint here. If you or someone you know have been threatened with unlawful repossession by Skipbusters, please do not hesitate to contact us for additional information.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on August 21, 2014
  There are laws in California that prohibit loan transactions from having a APR (annual percentage rate) of greater than 12%--or 7% in many instances. These laws are called Usury Laws and can be found at Article XV, Section 1 of the California Constitution and in California Civil Code § 1916.12-1 through 1916.12-5. Pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code §1916.12-3(b), any person who contracts to receive a usurious amount of interest is considered "loan sharking" and is a felony crime. Additionally, someone who has suffered a usurious loan can sue civilly to recover all interest paid on the loan within the previous two years in addition to triple the amount of interest paid within the previous one year—these are not limited to just the usurious interest paid but applies to all interest paid. Unfortunately, there are many exemptions from usury laws, such as banks, which is why credit cards, private student loans, and mortgage loans are typically between 10%-24%. There has been a disturbing rise in the past few years for "short term loans", which are also listed as an exemption. Short term loans are the types of loans that allow someone to get a quick influx of cash for a very high interest rate. The expectation is that the loan will be repaid in a short period of time and is not usually expected to take an entire year or more to be repaid, and therefore the high annual percentage rate is not expected to be detrimental to the borrower. If the company is labelling the loan a "short term loan" with the intention of evading the Usury laws, then the loan is not protected from Usury laws prohibitions. If someone is truly in need of emergency funding and has the ability to repay the loan on time, these loans can be beneficial. The problem, though, is that most people don’t know how problematic it can be to pay these loans off on time, and then unexpectedly suffer high penalties, acceleration clauses, and losing both title and possession to their vehicles being used as collateral. Even more disturbing is that almost half of the people who take out these loans have to incur more debt with another company just to pay off the first company, thereby creating a never-ending cycle of debt for the company's to simply sit back and profit from the unfortunate debtor struggling to survive on a day to day basis. A very disturbing depiction of these loans was presented by John Oliver on HBO’s Last Week Tonight on Sunday August 10, 2014. Watch the video below for more: The law offices of Semnar Law Firm, Inc. and Hartman Law Office, Inc. have teamed up to file a lawsuit recently against a company called Trading Financial Credit, LLC. The lawsuit was filed in the Orange County Superior Court under case number 30-2014-00735404. The complaint can be found here complaint. The lawsuit alleges that Trading Financial deceptively labelled their tile loan mandating 92% APR on a $4,000.00 loan as a type of loan exempt from Usury, but only did so with the intention of avoiding usury law prohibitions. The lawsuit further alleges violations of Rosenthal FDCPA (for more on that see our tab called "Debt Collection") by having someone falsely threaten the plaintiff with criminal investigations for fraud and by calling her references with the same false threats, among other matters. The bottom line, every person should be very careful when entering into these types of loans. Tough economic times may require quick cash, but there are many other ways to obtain cash that might not cause as many problems. If you or a loved one has entered into such a loan and is being taken advantage of and feel that the loan company is violating your rights, contact us immediately for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your circumstances.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on August 4, 2014
  If you have been sued for an outstanding debt, you MUST contact us immediately for a FREE, CONFIDENTIAL consultation to discuss the circumstances of whether the law firm has violated your rights under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Rosenthal Act. Many people mistakenly believe that, because they are being sued by a law firm, the FDCPA does not protect them for the unfair and oppressive actions taken by the law firm. However, courts all across the country recognize that law firms whose practice primarily engage in the collection of debts on behalf of others—including whose primary practice is to file lawsuits for many of these firms operate like a mill and they do not engage in any meaningful review of the case provided to them by the creditor on whose behalf they are pursuing suit (if they engage in any review at all). Instead, their primary operation is to simply accept the creditor’s claim that the debt is owed, that the particular person being sought after is the right person, the amount sought is proper, and that the lawsuit is not barred by statute of limitations. They will then send a few letters and place a few phone calls to the claimed debtor, and upon receiving no response they will file hundreds of lawsuits in bulk and then seek default judgment on bogus proofs of service. This in turn results in judgment liens being placed upon the unfortunate debtor’s home, bank accounts, or vehicles, and may also result in a garnishment of the unfortunate debtor’s wages directly from his or her paycheck. Many violations that are committed by these law firm mills include the following:
  1. Threatening to file a lawsuit or seek judgment on a debt that is barred by statute of limitations
  2. Filing a lawsuit that is barred by applicable statute of limitations
  3. Discussing the debt with friends, neighbors, or family of the actual debtor
  4. Seeking default judgment on fraudulent proofs of service when the debtor was not actually served properly
  5. Asking for more money in the lawsuit than what they are entitled to collect
  6. Filing suit in a county other than where the debtor currently resides or where the debt was actually incurred
Most people are misinformed when they believe that such violations by law firms in connection with a lawsuit are not able to prosecuted because of a state law litigation privilege. However, the courts have repeatedly denied such arguments in finding that the Federal Pre-emption Clause prohibits any state law litigation privilege from barring a lawsuit for violations of Federal Laws. Depending on the violation involved, it is also possible that their conduct could give rise to a charge for abuse of process or malicious prosecution and result in punitive damages against them. The law offices of Semnar Law Firm, Inc. and Hartman Law Office, Inc. have teamed up with the firms of Kazerouni Law Group, APC and Hyde & Swigart to file a federal lawsuit against Mandarich Law Group, LLP and CACH, LLC because the client entered into payment arrangements with Mandarich, then made every monthly payment as agreed, but Mandarich still filed a lawsuit against her, told her not to worry about the lawsuit and advised her she did not have to appear in court, but thereafter sought default judgment against her for the full amount of the debt without crediting any of the payments she had made. This atrocious violation of the client’s rights resulted in a lawsuit for Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Abuse of Process. The lawsuit can be found under case number 5:14-cv-01496 in the Central District of California. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU OR YOUR LOVED ONE. Let us help you stand up for your rights!!!


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on July 28, 2014
  If you or a loved one is in any branch of the military and is deployed or pending deployment, the servicemember may be protected from being declared to be in default on certain financial obligations. Members of the national military branches (U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, or U.S. Navy) are protected under federal law found at 50 U.S.C. Appendix 500 to 597b—known as the Federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Members of the California National Guard or the California Reserves are protected under state law found at California Military and Veterans Code 800 to 812—known as the California Military Families Financial Relief Act. State guardsmen of any state may be protected under the federal laws if they are dispatched in response to a national emergency under Presidential orders.
  1. To not be found in default on certain financial credit obligations during a specified time period as provided by law (typically no less than 6 months and no longer than the term of deployment);
  2. To defer payments on the financial obligation for a specified time period as provided by law;
  3. To not be subjected to any remedies granted to the creditor for breach of the payment obligations (such as prohibitions from vehicle repossession, home foreclosure, derogatory credit reporting, and/or pursuing a lawsuit); and
  4. Possible reduction in the interest rate upon the outstanding debt so that the accumulated interest is no oppressive upon reinstating financial obligations.
However, in order to invoke these protections, both sets of laws require the servicemember to take the following actions:
  1. Send a letter to the creditor, signed by the servicemember under penalty of perjury, requesting deferment of the specific financial obligation, and
  2. Enclose with the letter a copy of the servicemember’s deployment orders.
Please note that THE ONLY WAY TO INVOKE THESE PROTECTIONS IS TO TAKE THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE. Many financial institutions are not properly informed of these laws, and therefore they do not properly train their employees and agents on how to honor these protections. It is VERY COMMON for financial institutions to simply ignore the written request for deferment, or to erroneously claim that the servicemember is not protected. This is especially true when the servicemember is a California guardsman and the financial institution is not familiar with the California state laws that specifically protect guardsmen in the absence of protection under federal laws. A financial institution that ignores these protections, IF PROPERLY INVOKED BY THE SERVICEMEMBER, is subject to a civil lawsuit to recover actual damages (such as emotional distress and/or loss of actual money or property), as well as attorney’s fees and costs of bringing the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit is permitted regardless of whether the financial institution knew they were breaking the law. However, intentional violations of these laws may result in criminal charges being prosecuted against the financial institution. The California laws also protect the deployed servicemember’s spouse in the same manner as the servicemember, which means the spouse also has standing to bring his/her own lawsuit if s/he experienced any of the violations directly. The law offices of Semnar Law Firm, Inc. and Hartman Law Offices, Inc. have teamed up to file multiple cases under these laws, and the two firms regularly tie these violations into additional causes of action under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Rosenthal Act. For example, one client who properly invoked his protections against Alphera Financial Services (a subsidiary of BMW Financial Services) and his wife had to experience the unfortunate experience of being actively harassed by Alphera during the serevicemember’s deployment with excessive phone calls, threats of repossession, threats of criminal prosecution, and the company’s agents even told the servicemember and his wife that they don’t care about these laws and they intended to repossess the vehicle for what they considered to be a default. This lawsuit can be found under this case number 5:14-cv-01357, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!!!! If you or a loved one is a servicemember who is deployed or is pending deployment, contact us immediately for a FREE, CONFIDENTIAL consultation to discuss your rights and the specific circumstances of any potential violations of your rights Contact us today to schedule a free confidential consultation to discuss your rights!


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 1, 2015
  Have you discovered that someone else’s information has been posted on your consumer credit report? It is frighteningly common for the consumer credit reporting agencies (Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union) to mix someone else’s negative credit accounts with another person. It should go without saying that your consumer credit report should be 100% accurate with respect to only your own credit accounts. One common exception to this occurs with married couples who may be jointly liable for each other’s lines of credit, or may be listed as authorized users on each other’s individual accounts. However, when a consumer credit reporting agency is mixing the information for two people with the same name—whether related or not—then the law has been violated. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons that the U.S. Legislature enacted the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act in the first place. The FCRA enforces this principle when it requires the consumer credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information “concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” See 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). This Section requires the agencies to have in place reasonable procedures to ensure that these violations do not occur, and they must follow those procedures. Courts have ruled that it may very likely be unreasonable for the credit reporting agencies to only match names without using any other identifying factors such as date of birth, social security number, address, or the like. Typically, whether an agencies procedures are reasonable, however, is a question for the jury to decide under the circumstances. It is also unreasonable for a credit reporting agency to maintain two files under one social security number, since it is mandatory that each SSN belong to only one person. Please click HERE to read a complaint that has recently been filed by Semnar & Hartman, LLP against Experian that alleges this very violation—alleging that Experian merged the derogatory accounts belonging to the young consumer’s estranged father into the consumer’s file, which caused him to be outrightly denied the opportunity to apply for an auto loan that he desperately needed. If you or a loved one have been contacted by this debt collector, please contact us immediately for a free and confidential consultation to review your rights.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on November 14, 2015
  Semnar & Hartman, LLP have recently filed a lawsuit against a debt collector out of the McCarron, Nevada called First National Collection Bureau, Inc. for threatening an improper lawsuit against a consumer whose debt had been discharged in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 2006. The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from misrepresenting the legal status of a debt and also prohibits a debt collector from threatening to take an action that cannot be legally taken. Because the credit card debt had been discharged in Bankruptcy in 2006, the debt had been completely extinguished and any legal ability for the client to be sued on the debt has also been expired by the statute of limitations due to the age of the default on the debt. When First National sent its collection letter repeatedly claiming to be offering to settle the debt and the settlement offer would be revoked if it were not accepted on their terms, then First National implicitly threatened to the client that she could be sued on the debt. Moreover, due to the Bankruptcy discharge, the debt no longer exists anyway. Consequently, a lawsuit has been recently filed against First National to remedy this abusive conduct. A copy of this lawsuit can be read by clicking HERE. If you or a loved one have been contacted by this debt collector, please contact us immediately for a free and confidential consultation to review your rights.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on September 21, 2015
  The law firm of Semnar & Hartman LLP has recently filed a lawsuit against these companies for some very egregious violations of the Rosenthal Act and the Federal FDCPA. The client was being contacted on a very old credit card debt that is barred from judgment by statute of limitations. When a debt collector is prohibited from obtaining a judgment by the applicable statute of limitations, the FDCPA requires that the collector not threaten a lawsuit, file a lawsuit, and in many instances cannot even imply that a lawsuit is possible or being considered. The reason is because the debtor is not likely to know that the statute of limitations has expired, and is therefore likely to be misled into paying the debt out of duress just to avoid a lawsuit that in actuality could never have been sought. The offending companies in this case left multiple voicemails on the cell phone for his client, his mother, and his mother in law claiming that a lawsuit was being filed and process servers were looking for the client. However, all of this was false. A lawsuit had never been filed against the client, and due to the statute of limitations expiring the companies violated the Rosenthal Act and the FDCPA by even claiming one was being considered. Additionally, the offending companies left voicemails for the client, his mother, and mother in law threatening that the lawsuit involved allegations of fraud and theft of services. Again, these threats were false and violated the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA. A breach of an agreement to pay a credit card (or any other loan) is not a criminal action unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the debtor entered into the loan without any intention of ever paying it back. Simply failing to pay the debt is not a criminal action and a debt collector claiming it is a criminal action has violated the law. A copy of this Complaint can be read by clicking HERE. If you or a loved one have been subjected to similar such violations, do not take them lightly. Consumer rights are in play to protect the gullible and to prevent debt collectors and creditors from taking unfair advantage of the consumer. Please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on August 24, 2015
  The law firm of Semnar & Hartman, LLP are presently investigating possible consumer rights violations being committed by RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation in connection with its efforts to collect monthly mortgage payments from California home owners. Such possible violations may include the following:
  1. Force-placing into Escrow amounts for anticipated taxes in the future even though the homeowner has a waiver of such items to be paid through Escrow;
  2. Failing to send monthly collection statements informing the homeowner of exactly how much RoundPoint is collecting from the homeowner;
  3. Sending monthly collection statements that indicate RoundPoint is collecting Escrow items for “taxes and insurance” when in reality they are only attempting to collect either taxes or insurance, but not both;
  4. Furnishing inaccurate information to the consumer credit reporting agencies by claiming a homeowner is in default on the mortgage payments when in reality the homeowner has always paid his or her monthly obligation;
  5. Threatening foreclosure if the homeowner does not call to make payment arrangements for amounts that the homeowner does not actually owe.
If you or a loved one have a home mortgage loan being serviced by RoundPoint, please do not hesitate to call us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights as a homeowner and whether those rights may have been violated.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on July 22, 2015
  Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: "I detest robo-calls. We receive thousands of complaints a month about robo-calls, and our friends across town at the Federal Trade Commission receive tens of thousands more." "We applaud the FCC for upholding the essential protections in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a key consumer law," said National Consumer Law Center attorney Margot Saunders. "The industry petitions [requests from companies to protect their interests over consumers'] would have exposed consumers to a tsunami of unwanted robocalls and texts to their cell phones." "We applaud the FCC for holding the line to keep the plague of unwanted robocalls from becoming even worse," added Susan Grant, director of Consumer Protection and Privacy at Consumer Federation of America. The TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act, at 47 U.S.C. 227) is a statute that prohibits, among other things, unwanted telephone calls with automatic telephone dialing systems, robot messages, and/or pre-recorded voice messages without consent and without emergency purposes, as well as junk faxes and telemarketers calling people who are registered on the "Do Not Call List". See our page titled "Phone Calls (TCPA Video)" for more detailed information on the statute. By statute, the FCC has authority to issue rules that interpret and apply the statute itself. The courts are bound to follow the FCC rulings as if they were the statute themselves. Over the years, there has been much heavily-contested litigation over many of the grey areas within the statute and FCC rulings themselves. However, on July 10, 2015, the FCC released its newest ruling and order that clarifies a lot of these grey areas. Many of the rulings are very beneficial to consumers who wish to put a stop to the unwanted harassment that companies engage in. Consent must be provided by the current subscriber or regular user of the phone number: "The new user of a reassigned phone number shouldn't have to put up with being abused by callers for the old user of the phone number," said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. One of the hotly-contested issues over the years has occurred when a company intends to call one person who had previously given consent to the company for TCPA purposes, but the company inadvertently calls the wrong person who has since received the first person’s phone number. Courts throughout the country have issued differing rulings, with some courts ruling that the company has no liability when it intends to call a person who had previously given consent while other courts have ruled that the person who is the current subscriber is the only person who can consent to be called upon the phone number at issue. The FCC has issued its ruling in favor of the consumers on this issue. One of the hotly-contested issues over the years has occurred when a company intends to call one person who had previously given consent to the company for TCPA purposes, but the company inadvertently calls the wrong person who has since received the first person’s phone number. Courts throughout the country have issued differing rulings, with some courts ruling that the company has no liability when it intends to call a person who had previously given consent while other courts have ruled that the person who is the current subscriber is the only person who can consent to be called upon the phone number at issue. The FCC has issued its ruling in favor of the consumers on this issue. This requirement of consent also applies to the person who is the primary user of the phone number but is not the subscriber on paper. For instance, if the wife regularly uses the phone number that was issued in her husband’s name, then the consent must have been given by the wife as the regular user of the number. Prior express consent can be revoked via any reasonable means: Another hotly-contested issue over the years is whether a consumer can revoke consent that had previously been given. Again, courts throughout the country have been divided—with some courts ruling that consent cannot be revoked after once having been given, other courts ruling that consent must be revoked in writing, while other courts ruling that consent can be revoked verbally at any time. The FCC has once again ruled in favor of consumers. A consumer can revoke consent for TCPA purposes at any time and via any method that is reasonable. That means simply telling the company one time over the phone to stop calling is valid and effective to trigger TCPA liability on every call thereafter. But be careful: as soon as the company asks if they can call you back on your current number and you agree, then consent might have just been renewed. It is best to insist that all communications be in writing, and that any letter from you that requests all calls to cease be delivered via fax or certified mail for proof of delivery, so that there is never any ambiguity or question as to whether consent was revoked. Additionally, it is important to note that the FCC has denied one company’s request that it allow the company’s to control how consent can be revoked. It is clear that no company, for TCPA purposes, can dictate how revocation can be lodged by the consumer—even if the contract that gave rise to a debt is agreed to by the consumer and that contract gives direction on exactly how the company will accept revocation, then TCPA liability still exists even if the consumer gives revocation in a manner different than how the company has dictated in its contract. Additionally, it is important to note that the FCC has denied one company’s request that it allow the company’s to control how consent can be revoked. It is clear that no company, for TCPA purposes, can dictate how revocation can be lodged by the consumer—even if the contract that gave rise to a debt is agreed to by the consumer and that contract gives direction on exactly how the company will accept revocation, then TCPA liability still exists even if the consumer gives revocation in a manner different than how the company has dictated in its contract. An automatic telephone dialing system is one that has the capacity to act as an auto-dialer, even if not used for that purpose: The TCPA prohibits calls from being placed with an “automatic telephone dialing system” (also known as an ATDS) to a cell phone, when there is no consent or emergency purpose. Note that these types of calls do not trigger liability when the call is placed to a landline….only calls to a landline with robot messages and/or pre-recorded voice messages trigger TCPA liability. There has been heavy litigation over the years as to what triggers liability under this prong of the TCPA. Many companies use machines that have the capability to act as an ATDS, but claim that an agent manually-dialed the number at the time of calling the consumer. It is now unequivocally clear that the FCC has ruled that such calls are still in violation of the TCPA. An ATDS is now unquestionably defined as dialing equipment that generally has the capacity to store or produce and then dial random or sequential numbers even if it is not presently used for that purpose. Also a "predictive dialer" meets the definition of an ATDS, as it is equipment with the capacity to store or produce and then dial random or sequential numbers, even though the dialer predicts when a sales agent will be available to be subsequently dialed by the equipment to then connect with the consumer who answered the initial call by the dialer. As it always has, the TCPA provides victims of such unwanted calls a minimum of $500.00 per call as strict liability, and possibly $1,500.00 per call for willful violations. If you or a loved one are fed up with the abusive calls lodged by companies on a daily basis, do not hesitate to contact us for a free, confidential consultation to discuss your rights.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on May 11th, 2015
  Both federal and California laws protect military members from discrimination. The federal law is called Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERA) and can be found at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4333. The California law is called the California Military and Veterans’ Code and can be found at Calif. Military and Veteran’s Code § 394. Among other things, these statutes prohibit discrimination against military members by employers for their status as military or for performing their obligations as military members. Discrimination by employers can occur by way of refusing to hire the military member; taking adverse action such as discipline, demotion, or refusal to promote, or denial of ancillary benefits; termination of employment; or failing to re-employ upon return from deployment. In order to obtain civil relief, the military member need only show that the military status or military obligations served as a substantial motivating factor in the employer’s decision, and need not show that military was the sole motivating factor. The employer can only then escape liability if it proves that the adverse action would have been taken even if the military status or military obligations did not exist. The law firm of Semnar & Hartman, LLP recently filed a lawsuit against Enviro-Master Corporation for such allegations of discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that the owner of Enviro-Master Corp’s San Bernardino branch terminated the military member’s employment by sending an email that specifically cited the member’s military obligations as the reason for the termination. The complaint can be viewed by clicking HERE.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on May 2nd, 2015
  Have you or a loved on been subjected to debt collection efforts by Nationstar Mortgage, LLC upon a mortgage debt that is not owed? The firm of Semnar & Hartman, LLP has recently filed suit against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. alleging that Bank of America retained the services of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC to collect upon a defaulted mortgage that was settled by way of short-sale. After foreclosure proceedings had been initiated, but before foreclosure occurred, the consumers completed a short-sale of the home. Bank of America signed documents that specifically states the outstanding debt had been settled and that the consumers were released from any further obligation for owing the difference. Unfortunately, however, approximately one year after the short-sale was completed, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC began sending letters to the consumers attempting to collect upon the amount that had been forgiven. The consumers informed Nationstar that the debt had been settled by way of short-sale, and Nationstar simply told them to ignore the letters. However, Nationstar continued to send collection letters and even began to threaten foreclosure upon the same home that the consumers had already sold. Even worse for the consumers, Nationstar had also began reporting upon their credit reports the false information that they were still in default on the loan and the loan had been charged off as a bad debt. This false reporting led to the consumers being denied new lines of credit and has prevented them from moving on with their lives after such a difficult period. The Complaint has been filed in the Central District of California and can be viewed by clicking here. If you or a loved one is being harassed by Nationstar for a debt that is not owed, or if being harassed even upon a debt that is legitimately owed, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation as to whether your rights have been violated.
Related Tags: debt collection harassment, rosenthal fair debt collection, san diego debt harassment attorney, california debt harassment attorney, orange county debt harassment attorney, riverside debt harassment attorney​, FDCPA, FCRA, Rosenthal Act, Nationstar Mortgage harassment, Bank of America harassment, Nationstar debt collection harassment, Bank of America debt collection harassment


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on April 28th, 2015
  Semnar & Hartman, LLP is currently investigating claims against Wells Fargo Mortgage regarding harassing telephone calls in connection with their collection of mortgage payments. It is believe that Wells Fargo places harassing robo-calls, autodialed calls, and/or calls with pre-recorded and/or artificial voice messages to consumers who have not previously consented to receive such calls for purposes of collecting upon mortgage payments. In most instances, robocalls and robo text messages violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and generally each violations allows for $500 to $1,500 per violation. If you or a loved one has received such calls and/or text messages from Wells Fargo Mortgage, we invite you to please contact us for a free and confidential consultation. TCPA Protections Against Unconsented Robocalls, Autodialed calls, and text messages The TCPA became law in 1991, putting restrictions on automated calls, autodialed calls, calls with pre-recorded and/or artificial voice messages, and text messages, whether sent for debt collection or telemarketing purposes. In most circumstances, an entity must have a person’s prior express consent in order to make automated or prerecorded calls or text messages. See our “Phone calls” webpage or blog postings regarding TCPA violations for more detailed information. If you or a loved one have received robocalls or text messages from Wells Fargo Mortgage, we encourage you to fill out our contact form so that we can evaluate your rights. We have experience handling alleged TCPA violations and are committed to providing you answers while holding institutions like Wells Fargo Mortgage accountable. We look forward to speaking with you.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on April 21st, 2015
  Semnar & Hartman, LLP is currently investigating claims against TD Auto Finance, the automobile financial services provider, for placing robo-calls, autodialed calls, and/or calls with pre-recorded and/or artificial voice messages to consumers who have not previously consented to receive such calls, as well as sending text messages without consent. In most instances, robocalls and robo text messages violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and generally each violations allows for $500 to $1,500 per violation. If you or a loved one has received such calls and/or text messages from TD Auto Finance, we invite you to please contact us for a free and confidential consultation. TCPA Protections Against Unconsented Robocalls, Autodialed calls, and text messages The TCPA became law in 1991, putting restrictions on automated calls, autodialed calls, calls with pre-recorded and/or artificial voice messages, and text messages, whether sent for debt collection or telemarketing purposes. In most circumstances, an entity must have a person’s prior express consent in order to make automated or prerecorded calls or text messages. See our “Phone calls” webpage or blog postings regarding TCPA violations for more detailed information. If you or a loved one have received robocalls or text messages from TD Auto Finance, we encourage you to fill out our contact form so that we can evaluate your rights. We have experience handling alleged TCPA violations and are committed to providing you answers while holding institutions like TD Auto Finance accountable. We look forward to speaking with you.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on April 10th, 2015
  Suffering a significant injury while on the job can be very traumatizing and life altering. Not being able to perform the job that one was once able to perform can cause a serious blow to one’s emotional stability and self-confidence, and the lack of ability to provide financial stability to one’s family is severely unfortunate. Insult to such injury is added when medical debt collectors fail to submit their billing liens to the workers’ compensation board and persist in attempting to collect from the injured employee directly. Thankfully, the law provides protections against such unfair debt collection tactics. California Labor Code Sections 4600, 5300, 5304, and 5955 provide the basis that the worker’s compensation board has exclusive jurisdiction to handle medical debts that are the subject of a workers’ compensation claim. In order for the medical provider and/or debt collector to seek reimbursement for such services, they must submit a lien to the workers’ compensation board so that the board can determine the appropriate amount of pay for the employer and/or employer’s insurance company to provide. If the medical provider and/or debt collector is not satisfied with the board’s ruling, then their sole remedy is to file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to California Labor Code § 5900 and then appellate review pursuant to California Labor Code § 5950. However, California Labor Code § 3751(b) provides that medical providers shall not collect money directly from their patients for services to cure or relieve the effect of the injury for which a claim form, pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 5401, was filed, unless the medical provider has received written notice that liability for the injury has been rejected by the employer and the medical provider has provided a copy of this notice to the patient. Any medical provider who violates Cal. Lab. Code § 3751(b) shall be liable for three times the amount unlawfully collected, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Semnar & Hartman, LLP regularly ties such unlawful debt collection tactics into a claim for either or both of the Federal or Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts, since those laws prohibit any attempt to collect an unauthorized amount in connection with consumer debts. If you or a loved one are proceeding through a workers’ compensation board claim, but are still receiving debt collection bills and/or phone calls, please do not hesitate to contact us as soon as possible for a free, confidential consultation about your rights.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on April 17th, 2016
  On April 6, 2016, in the case of McCaskill v. Navient Solutions, Inc. in the US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Case No. 15-cv-1559, the Court granted a motion for partial summary judgment as to liability in favor of the consumer-plaintiff based on Navient calling his cell phone with an automatic telephone dialing system upwards of 727 times. As we all know, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits a company from placing calls to a cell phone by using equipment that has the capacity to store and generate numbers to be dialed at random, and also if the calls are placed with robotic or pre-recorded voice messages. The only way for a company to not be found in violation of the TCPA for these calls is if the calls were placed for emergency purposes, or with the consumer’s prior express consent. Because these calls were placed for purpose of debt collection, they were not for an emergency purpose. However, the issue in the lawsuit was with respect to prior express consent. Because Navient obtained the phone number through a public records search and did not get the number from Plaintiff voluntarily providing it to them, and because Navient failed to prove that she gave authority to another person to use her number for this Navient account, then Navient lost on summary judgment (meaning the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of the Plaintiff that Navient could not defend its case on liability in front of a jury). Therefore, the Plaintiff in this case has now been awarded liability against Navient for upwards of 727 violations of the TCPA at $500 per call, for damages of $363,500.00. The motion for summary judgment left open for a jury to determine whether the violations by Navient were willful. If a jury does find the violations were willful, then the Court could impose triple damages in Plaintiff’s favor, thereby awarding her upwards of $1,090,500.00. This court’s ruling can be read by clicking HERE. Below are some very important points to be taken from the Court’s ruling:
  1. Defendants identify no facts suggesting that Plaintiff knowingly released her cell phone number to [Navient]. Indeed, Defendants point to no evidence that Plaintiff had any contact with Defendants prior to receiving their calls. Defendants instead argue that Plaintiff manifested her consent by allowing her phone to ring over 700 times without attempting to stop the calls. (Doc. # 97 at 12). The Court is not persuaded. The statute requires "express consent," 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), and Plaintiff's silence in the face of 727 phone calls demonstrates, at best, presumed or implied consent, which is not sufficient under the statute. In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7991 (2015).1
  2. Defendants also suggest that there is a "significant question" about whether the -6140 number is exclusively Plaintiff's to use, and thus whether it is a number for which Plaintiff may provide consent. (Doc. # 97 at 12). The TCPA requires prior express consent to be supplied by "the called party." 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A). The Eleventh Circuit holds that "the called party" is the current subscriber of the cell phone, not the intended recipient of the call. Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 755 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2014)Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242, 1251–52 (11th Cir. 2014). More specifically, the subscriber is "the person who pays the bills or needs the line in order to receive other calls." Osorio, 746 F.3d 1251. Similarly, the FCC recently defined "called party" as "the subscriber, i.e., the consumer assigned the telephone number dialed and billed for the call, or the non-subscriber customary user of a telephone number included in a family or business calling plan." In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. at 8000-01.
  3. Defendants point out that Plaintiff used the -6140 number as her residential line for years and also listed it as the phone number for LFJ on her 1999 application to incorporate the church. (Doc. # 97 at 11-12). These facts, while undisputed, are not directly relevant to whether Plaintiff is the "subscriber," that is, the person who pays the bills for the number or who is the customary user of the number. Osorio, 746 F.3d 1251; In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. at 8000-01.
  4. Plaintiff testified that the bill for the -6140 number goes to her daughter Melissa, because she is on a family plan, but that Plaintiff pays her part of the bill. (Pl. Dep. at 24). Plaintiff also testified that she uses the phone both for herself and for LFJ, for which she is the pastor. (Id. at 43). Because Defendants cite no evidence indicating that another person pays the bills or is the customary user of the -6140 number, Defendants fail to create an issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff is "the called party" under 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A).
  5. Because there is no evidence that Plaintiff, herself, provided prior express consent, the remaining question is whether Newsome consented on Plaintiff's behalf. In particular, Defendants must establish that Newsome had authority to consent on Plaintiff's behalf, and that Newsome did, in fact, consent. Osorio, 746 F.3d at 1252. Defendants argue that disputed issues of material fact exist sufficient to preclude summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor. The Court disagrees.
  6. Taking Defendants' version of the facts as true, Newsome may have confirmed Plaintiff's cell phone number to Sallie Mae (a point that Plaintiff vehemently disputes). Under Florida law, however, Newsome's conduct is not sufficient to create an apparent agency relationship absent some evidence that Plaintiff tolerated, allowed, or acknowledged Newsome's conduct.
  7. Accordingly, Defendants fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether any of the 727 calls were made with Plaintiff's prior express consent. As already noted, Defendants do not otherwise dispute that these 727 calls constitute violations of the TCPA. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants' liability on the TCPA claims (Counts I and III) is granted.
If you or a loved one is receiving calls from Navient to collect on a student loan, then please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on April 13th, 2016
  It has become increasingly commonplace in our society for credit reports and credit scores to be a primary driving force behind our ability to freely live and work in the U.S. From buying a car to buying a home, obtaining student loans, obtaining a line of credit to purchase home computer equipment, to leasing a fancy smartphone, and to even obtaining a job in many work-fields, our society has turned to one that thrives on accurate credit reporting. It has even resulted in potential employers and landlords perceiving our level of responsibility and trustworthiness as being contingent upon information contained within our credit reports. Many people don’t realize is that even criminal background checks can be conducted through a credit report public records section. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that we must have accurate information on our credit reports. In order to have an accurate credit score, the information reported on each account must be accurate. What might come as a surprise, however, is that it is frighteningly common for mistakes to occur in the system of generating information drive by numerical codes and syntax. All it takes is for one person to punch the wrong number in a code, and the output comes out drastically wrong. Or the computer system misreads the syntax, and suddenly two people have their individualized information mixed with each other erroneously. On April 10, 2016, “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver”, a frightening—albeit comical—presentation was provided to emphasize just how important this topic has become in our every-day lives. You can watch the video here: In order for a potential employer or landlord to obtain an accurate assumption of our levels of responsibility and trustworthiness as individuals, the information reported on each account must be accurate. Even the slightest wrong comment in the wrong section (for instance, adding “settled for less than full balance” as opposed to “settled for full balance”) can have a dramatic consequence. Therefore, you as the individual should be diligent in reviewing your own credit reports on a regular basis. It is not acceptable anymore to just ignore what is on your credit report and assume it is all accurate anyway. You may be harmed without even realizing it. For instance, you may be paying a higher interest rate on your private student loans and credit cards or car loans based on inaccurate information that you don’t even know is on your report. Don’t ignore it…you should check your reports every few weeks just to make sure nothing has changed and everything is accurate. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and answer any questions you may have. If something seems wrong, you should ask what to do about it. We know the right method for lodging written disputes and we are happy to point you in the right direction and answer your questions. And if your rights have been violated, then we are ready and able to pursue action if necessary.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on March 23, 2016
  On March 1, 2016, Huffington Post Chief Financial and Regulatory Correspondent Shahien Nasiripour published an article that alleges the public was misled about whether Navient Corp. (under its former name Sallie Mae) violated the U.S. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by intentionally and systematically overcharging troops on student loans for nearly a decade by failing to lower interest rates to 6% as required by the federal law. Nasiripuor writes that an internal investigation shows, "In Navient’s case, the department improperly credited the company for modifying some troops’ loans when records show that the interest rate reductions had been backdated.” He further writes,"DOJ data strongly suggested that the Education Department missed thousands of violations of federal law when it publicly exonerated Navient" and "In November, another official at the federal consumer bureau said that hundreds of thousands of troops have been forced to make at least $100 million in student loan interest payments that they actually were exempt from." Mr. Nasiripour's March 1, 2016 article can be read by clicking here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/education-department-misled-public-on-student-loan-contractors-probe_us_56d5d2a7e4b0bf0dab337e33. Previously, on February 7, 2016, Mr. Nasiripour published an article that quotes current Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton as stating that Navient Corp. is "doing some really terrible things" by "misleading" borrowers, and that Navient’s "behavior is outrageous" and she is "totally appalled" by the company. To put these statements into context, Nasiripour further wrote, "Numerous government agencies have been investigating the nation's largest student loan specialist over several years for allegedly overcharging borrowers and mistreating them in violation of the law. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in August told Navient, which collects borrowers' monthly payments and counsels them on their repayment options, that it had amassed enough evidence to indicate the company violated consumer protection laws, and it might sue the company in court." Additionally, "New York state’s banking regulator and a group of state attorneys general are among the authorities probing Navient’s interactions with borrowers, such as its practice of threatening to seize assets from borrowers in good standing simply because a co-signer of their loan had died." Mr. Nasiripour’s March 1, 2016 article can be read by clicking here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-navient_us_56b7a886e4b01d80b246b214 If you or a loved one are experiencing unfairness, harassment, or oppression from Navient Corp., please do not hesitate to contact us for a free, confidential consultation to discuss whether your rights may have been violated.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on February 25, 2016
  It can be a very intimidating and worrisome experience to be the subject of debt collectors’ aggressive tactics. It is common to experience nervousness, fear, worry, fluttering of the heart with a rise in heart rate and blood pressure, and if the debt collector treats you with indignity you may also feel emotions of anger, embarrassment, shame, and fear. It is common in the debt collection industry for debt collectors to deliberately force their victims into paying the debt by invoking these feelings. The reasoning is that you are more likely to pay the debt if you feel uncomfortable by the interaction, thinking that if you pay them then they will go away. But you do have rights! As is clear from other blog articles on our website, you have the right to be protected from abuse, harassment, oppression, lies, and misrepresentations! Don’t take this lightly, your rights are powerful and you can use them as a shield to deflect the abuse. The Fair Trade Commission (FTC) has recently put out some very helpful blog articles with videos to explain your rights. In one article, the FTC empowers people to stand up against scam artists. These FTC articles can be found here: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/stand-fake-debt-collectors and https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0258-fake-debt-collectors. Unfortunately, there are plenty of criminals out there that are more than happy to lie about who they are when they pretend to be a legit debt collector, but in reality they are simply trying to take your money through extortion. The most common trick by these con artists is to lie about suing you when there really is no lawsuit pending, and also to lie about police looking for you for committing fraud when in reality failing to pay a debt is a civil breach of contract matter and not a criminal violation. Many times, these con artists also get your employers’ information from public records and credit report inquiries, and they call your place of employment to spread these lies to your boss and co-workers in order to put pressure on you. The FTC empowers consumers by giving the following advice:
  • Ask the caller for his name, company, street address, and telephone number. Tell the caller you won’t discuss any debt until you get a written "validation notice." If the caller refuses, don’t pay.
  • Put your request in writing. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires any debt collector to stop calling if you ask in writing. Of course, if the debt is real, sending such a letter does not get rid of the debt, but it should stop the contact.
  • Don’t give or confirm any personal, financial, or other sensitive information.
  • Contact your creditor. If a debt is legitimate – but you think the collector isn’t — contact the company to which you owe the money.
  • Report the call. File a complaint with the FTC and your state Attorney General's office with information about suspicious callers
If you are the subject of debt collection efforts by a legit debt collector, then you still have rights! We find the most common examples of debt collection abuse by legit debt collectors are when they misrepresent the amount you owe, try to collect interest and fees that they are not entitled to, threaten lawsuits when the debt is already barred by statute of limitations, calling at inconvenient times and/or calling with such frequency that the calls are harassing, and inaccurate credit reporting. If you are the subject of debt collection efforts, then you should still take steps to protect yourself by asking for details of who they are, where they are calling from, how did they acquire the debt, when did they acquire the debt, and from whom did they acquire the debt. The FTC has also put out an article giving similar advice, which can be found here: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0149-debt-collection. In addition to the above, you should also not hesitate to contact a consumer protection attorney, such as us at Semnar & Hartman, LLP, for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and to see if a lawsuit can be filed on your behalf.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on January 15, 2016
  Imagine a bank—such as Wells Fargo—contacts you and claims you owe them money on a credit card that you’ve never heard of. You ask some questions about the time and location of the application, and you discover that, indeed, this account was opened in your name fraudulently. You tell Wells Fargo’s agents that you never opened this account and you have been the victim of identity theft. However, they ignore your complaints and persists in calling you in an attempt to collect. You are now facing the very real future of continued harassing calls, threatening letters, potential debt collection lawsuits against you, potential wage garnishments and bank levies, and potential negative credit reporting against your name and social security number. All over an account that you never opened. What do you do? How do you protect yourself? In California, consumers who are the victims of identity theft are actually protected by law from debt collection activity upon the account opened under identity theft, but you cannot just sit idly by and hope everything falls into place. You must take action, and we at Semnar & Hartman, LLP are experienced in helping!! Under California Code 1798.92-1798.93, if you or a loved one have been the victim of identity theft, you can bring a lawsuit against a debt collector or bank that is claiming they are owed money upon the fraudulent account in order to have a judicial finding (called declaratory relief) that you are not liable upon the account. In connection with such a lawsuit, you can request a court order (called an injunction) that the debt collector or bank stop trying to collect from you, and you can also have the court order that any security interest (such as a car title loan or home mortgage loan) is void and unenforceable. Moreover, if the bank or debt collector has filed a lawsuit against you, you can file a counter claim against them seeking dismissal of their lawsuit in addition to declaratory relief and an injunction. In order to recover attorneys’ fees, costs of litigation, actual damages, however, you have to put them on written notice of the identity theft and provide them a copy of either a police report or DMV report showing that you lodged a formal report as a victim of identity theft. You have to provide this written notice and the police report to the address identified by the creditor as being their address for processing identity theft claims. You have to also wait 30 days after providing such notice before filing suit. If they have failed to diligently investigate the claim and persisted in their efforts to collect despite your compliance with all of the above, then you may also be able to recover a statutory penalty against them for up to $30,000.00 in addition to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of litigation. A sample complaint against Wells Fargo for this very type of allegation can be found by clicking here. There are other laws under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act that protect your credit reports from suffering derogatory accounts opened under identity theft and fraud, that prevent new fraudulently accounts from being reported, that require the credit reporting agencies to remove accounts that have been identified by you as identity theft, and place a freeze on your credit and prevents new accounts from being opened entirely. However, these laws require their own steps to be taken by you and will be reported under a different article. We are experienced in handling these claims as well. We can help you protect yourself!!! Do not hesitate to contact us immediately for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and to see how we can help.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on January 12, 2016
  We have talked a lot in other articles about how your attorneys’ fees can be awarded for successful prosecutions of actions under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Sometimes people ask what this means and how are they awarded by the court. It is not every case that allows for the court to award attorneys’ fees, because typically the court only rules upon a motion for attorneys’ fees after the consumer (our client) wins on the merits. The majority of cases settle for a specific lump sum of money, from which the attorneys will normally take a percentage on a contingency fee basis as their fees. However, if your case goes to trial and you win a verdict in your favor, or if your case is won pre-trial on motion for summary judgment, then the law requires that the creditor or collector who violated your rights to pay your attorneys’ fees by order of the court (unless they decide to settle for a specific amount of fees). In some cases, and more rarely, the creditor or debt collector against whom the lawsuit was brought might agree to a settlement whereby the consumer (our client) is awarded a specific amount of damages and then our attorneys’ fees and costs are to be decided by the court. In the attached example that you can read here, the defendants Western Dental Services and their debt collector Herbert P. Sears Company, Inc. did exactly that. They agreed that our client would be awarded a specific, but confidential, sum of money with our attorneys’ fees and costs being decided by motion to the court. The total amount awarded by the court was $65,277.28 for attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation. This was based on what is called the "lodestar" calculation, which requires the court to simply calculate a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours expended by the attorneys in order to come up with the total amount to be awarded. However, it is often not clear how the attorneys are awarded a certain hourly rate. The lodestar method typically requires the court to look at what is an average hourly rate for other attorneys in the same jurisdiction as the court where the case was filed with similar experience as the attorney whose motion is pending. It is common in the consumer rights area for the courts to rely on the U.S. Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report that is prepared every couple of years in order to document the average salary for consumer attorneys in each region and territory within the United States, mostly based on experience level and years of practice. The 2013-2014 version of this survey was prepared by Ronald L. Burdge, Esq., and can be found on the National Consumer Law Center’s website at https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/litigation/fee-survey-report-2013-2014.pdf. The court ruling got to the total amount of $65,277.28 by adding the reasonable costs of litigation to the total hourly amounts awarded to Jared M. Hartman at $349.00 per hour and Babak Semnar at $425.00 per hour in connection with their prosecution of claims under the Federal and Rosenthal FDCPA and California credit reporting act. If you or a loved one are concerned about whether your rights have been violated by a debt collector, creditor, bank, or credit reporting agency, please do not hesitate to call us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your case might fall within one of the areas of law that allow us to pursue our attorneys’ fees in a similar manner.

Judgment of $19,040.00 is the result of unlawful debt collection efforts by La Jolla Neurosurgical Associates

  • 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 services 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. Related Tags:


  • 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, as a result 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, (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 need only claim to Equifax to have a “legitimate business purpose” in order to obtain such information, such as landlords, financial institutions, government agencies, debt collectors, investigators, and more. Our firm has even prosecuted scam artists who were able to obtain private information on previous clients by incorporating a debt collection company so that the credit reporting agencies would believe their claim of “legitimate business purpose”, when in reality their business practices were to falsely threaten the consumers with arrest if they did not pay exorbitant amounts of money that they did not actually owe. It should go without saying, then, that the case for strengthening strangers’ access to consumers’ private information should be advanced. Unfortunately, however, Equifax treats such information (and the people associated with the information) as commodities, because Equifax consistently makes dozens of billions of dollars off their business practice of selling peoples’ information. 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on February 15, 2017
  In addition to consumer rights protection, our firm also handles civil rights matters related to police brutality. With the rise of popularity in cell phone videos and social media, such as “Facebook Live”, the public has grown to be much more aware of police brutality and other civil rights violations in their interaction with citizens. It is certainly a very scary and traumatic experience, but thankfully Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act exists to protect victims and allow the citizens to seek retribution for the damage that can be done. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code allows anyone within the United States to sue a government official for violation of a constitutional right. In police brutality suits, this allows citizens to file a lawsuit against an officer who commits violations such as: 1) the Fourth Amendment (physical touching (even with bullets or a tazer) is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment) by using excessive force or by unlawfully detaining/arresting someone; 2) the Fifth Amendment, by intentionally refusing to read a suspect their Miranda rights and persisting at interrogations; or 3) the 14th Amendment, such as using racial slurs or verbal abuse based on race violating one’s right to equal protection. These cases can undoubtedly become complicated based upon the legalities of immunity and whether constitutional and/or statutory rights have been violated by particular conduct. Consultation with an experienced attorney in these areas is vital. Our firm has filed two such lawsuits in the past as a result of allegations of excessive force and similar constitutional rights violations committed by San Diego Sheriff’s Deputies. In one case, the allegations included a claim that a person with mental illness was drug off a tree stump by Sheriff’s Deputies that caused him to land face-first into a bed of cacti, and the Deputies proceeded to tazer him and allow the police canine to attack him without any threat of physical harm from the victim to the Deputies. That Complaint can be read by clicking HERE. In another case, the lawsuit involves allegations that a Sheriff’s Deputy unlawfully detained a Top Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps and his female friend, and when the Marine verbally protested what appeared to be harassment the Deputy unlawfully escalated the situation to a point where the non-combative victim was physically beaten by all four Deputies, which caused the Marine to suffer a torn rotator cuff and abrasions/cuts to his face and fingers. That Complaint can be read by clicking HERE. This type of unlawful behavior should not go unpunished. Citizens who do not pose a threat of violence to police officers deserve to have peaceful non-violent encounters, which help to foster trust and cooperation between the police and the communities. When the police adopt a militaristic “us versus them” approach to their daily interactions with the communities, then trust and communication are lost, and everyone loses. If you or a loved one have experienced anything similar, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and whether they may 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.


  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on January 25, 2017
  s reported by the Washington Post on January 18, 2017 (the article can be read by clicking HERE), the student loan giant Navient was hit with three government lawsuits in one day for multiple consumer rights violations. Danielle Douglas-Gabriel reported, “Among the most serious charges in the CFPB complaint is an allegation that Navient incentivized employees to encourage borrowers to postpone payments through forbearance, an option in which interest continues to accrue, rather than enroll them in an income-driven repayment plan that would avoid fees. As a result, the CFPB says Navient amassed $4 billion in interest charges to the principal balances of borrowers who were enrolled in multiple, consecutive forbearances from January 2010 to March 2015.” With respect to the lawsuit brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB Director Richard Cordray said “Navient has systematically and illegally failed borrowers at every stage of repayment.” State Attorney Generals of Illinois and Washington also filed a lawsuit that, in addition to pursuing similar claims as the CFPB with respect to servicing violations, also accuse Navient (through its former parent company, Sallie Mae) of peddling “’risky and expensive’ subprime private student loans that carried high interest rates and fees”. AG Madison stated, “Navient and Sallie Mae saddle students with subprime loans that Sallie Mae designed to fail.” As quoted by Douglas-Gabriel, “The lawsuits are full of deeply disturbing allegations,” said Rohit Chopra, senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America and the former student-loan point man at the CFPB. “If this is true, then the company’s actions may be responsible for some of the pileup of defaults that we’ve seen in recent years.” Our firm at Semnar & Hartman, LLP has also recently filed suit against Navient. A copy of the Complaint can be read by clicking HERE. In this lawsuit, the consumer alleges that she paid off the loan with Navient in full, yet Navient proceeded to commit credit reporting violations by falsely reporting that the account had a current balance even after it had been paid in full, then falsely verified to Trans Union that the incorrect reporting was accurate, and also falsely reported to Experian that the account had been discharged in bankruptcy…. Thus, it appears that not even customers who pay their loans in full to Navient are free from their outrageous and abusive consumer violations. If you also have concerns about the way you are being treated by Navient, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.

Inaccurate Credit Reporting By Welk Resort After Releasing Property Back To Welk?

  • 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:

Kenosian & Miele’s Default Judgment based on faulty service set aside and case dismissed!

  • 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:


On January 30, 2018, Judge Hayes of the Southern District federal court denied Citizens Bank’s motion to dismiss our inaccurate credit reporting claims.  Based on California Civil Code 580b, when a lender decides to foreclose on a home instead of pursuing the borrower for financial damages, and if the mortgage was undertaken for the purpose of purchasing the house, then the lender cannot pursue the borrower for any deficiency between what is left of the balance of the loan after foreclosure sale.  This is known in California as the “one bite” rule—the lender only gets “one bite” at the apple in pursuing recourse for the default. Judge Hayes agreed with our allegations that, because the lender cannot pursue the borrower for any deficiency owed on the balance of the loan, then the lender also cannot report that deficiency upon the borrower’s credit reports.  In this case, Judge Hayes found that Citizens Bank had reported false, inaccurate, and misleading information, because Citizens Bank had been reporting on our client’s credit reports that he still owed a significant balance upon the loan after the foreclosure sale, which created the misleading impression that our client was still in default upon the account even though our client had no liability at all upon the account after the Bank chose to proceed with a foreclosure sale. You can read a copy of the ruling by clicking HERE. Related Tags:


On June 5, 2018, the entities Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First and the Jobs With Justice Education Fund published a report called “Grand Theft Paycheck: The Large Corporations Shortchanging Their Workers’ Wages”.  This report discusses findings from a nearly 8-year study of companies across the country who have suffered penalties for wage-theft claims since 2000.  The report found that California hosted more than half of the offending companies. According to the report, many mega companies such as Wells Fargo, Wal Mart, FedEx, Bank of America, Walt Disney Co., Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, 24 Hour Fitness, Oracle, Kaiser Permanente, Jack in the Box Inc., and Smart & Final boosted their profits by forcing employees to work off the clock or by not paying their required overtime. The report further found that such wage theft violations were “pervasive” and “goes far beyond sweatshops, fast-food outlets and retailers”. By analyzing 1,200 successful wage violation lawsuits brought against large-scale companies, the report found that $8.8 billion in penalties have been paid out between the lawsuits as well as penalties to the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division. The most common issue found was unpaid overtime, but also found common issues with meal/rest break violation penalties as well as employees being misclassified as independent contractors, which resulted in the employee being denied wages and benefits that must be provided to employees. You can read a copy of the report by clicking HERE.   Our law firm is dedicated to protecting employees’ rights, whether it be wage theft violations or discrimination/retaliation.  If you or a loved one has experienced any such issues, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation. Related Tags:


On July 3, 2018, Judge Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss filed by Ditech that argued our client was not removed from the home mortgage loan even though the lawsuit alleges that Ditech undertook the specific actions of removing her name as a customer and signatory to a modification agreement entered into by the ex-husband.  Ditech argued that the modification agreement contains a clause that shows the underlying loan still applies in full force as against our client.   However, California law specifically holds that any inconsistent terms between the modification agreement and the underlying agreement are replaced by the modification agreement.  Our position was that the modification agreement only applies between Ditech and the ex-husband, because it is a basic principal of contract law that someone cannot be held liable to something they did not agree to, and therefore any term in the modification agreement that shows the original note still applies in full force only applies to Ditech and the ex-husband subject to the inconsistent terms in the modification agreement.   The Court agreed with our allegations, ruling that Ditech’s actions in removing our client’s name as a customer creates at least an inference worthy of discovery and litigation that Ditech intended to remove our client from the loan altogether, and that when Ditech continued reporting to the credit reporting agencies that our client remains obligated upon the loan in the full amount then Ditech furnished false/inaccurate/misleading information as against our client.  Furthermore, Judge Birotte also agreed that when Ditech continued to call our client directly seeking payment after the ex-husband went into default, Ditech engaged in unlawful debt collection in violation of the Rosenthal Act. Read the opinion by clicking HERE. Related Tags:


On September 10, 2018, our firm filed a lawsuit against three defendants (the home owner/landlord, the property management company, and the property management company’s agent) related to our client contracting mold disease at a townhome in Santa Monica. A landlord is required by law to ensure that the residence is safe and habitable, and various conditions can result in the home being rendered uninhabitable.  Mold is now specifically recognized by California law as one of those very conditions that can render a residence uninhabitable. Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3, visible mold and dampness can render a housing unit to be substandard, which means the landlord must take reasonable and prompt actions to prevent such conditions from occurring. The lawsuit filed by our firm alleges that our client and her roommates put the defendants on written notice of multiple leaks and floods, but the defendants failed to take reasonable and prompt action to fix the leaks.  The defendants clearly knew this residence was prone to mold growth, because they included a mold addendum to the lease that specifically advised the tenants of such a condition. Furthermore, even a plumber even notified the defendants that the wood where the leak occurred would need refurbished and dehumidified, which should have prompted the defendants to take immediate action to prevent mold growth.  Unfortunately, however, the defendants’ lack of prompt action resulted in one leak going unrepaired for 3 days, while another leak went unrepaired for almost 2 months.  The tenants were also left to attempt to clean up the flooded water on their own without any professional services being hired by defendants. Eventually, mold grew and festered in multiple areas, which resulted in our client getting sick and suffering multiple issues related to mold disease.  A copy of our complaint can be found by clicking HERE. It is very important to know that mold disease is very serious and dangerous.  Anytime you suspect mold is growing in your residence, notify your landlord immediately.  Likewise, if there are any water leaks from any pipes or windows, you must promptly notify your landlord and insist that they fix the leak right away.  All notifications should be done in writing, which means email is the best method to deliver such notices.  In doing so, you are not only ensuring that your rights are protected, but also your health.


On September 17, 2018, our firm took over representing two out of many drug and alcohol treatment centers who allege they were taken advantage of by Health Net in being falsely denied claims for treatment being provided to recovering addicts. After passage of the Affordable Care Act, substance abuse treatment became an essential health benefit required to be included in individual health plans. Health Net began to offer better benefits for such coverage than its rivals and committed to paying reimbursement at a rate of 75% of the billable amount. At some point, however, in 2015 and 2016, Health Net began denying all claims across the board from any and all substance abuse treatment facilities. Health Net began to deny all claims as suspicion of fraud, and swept all such claims into the Special Investigation Unit and demanded burdensome amounts of records to justify payment. Even though Health Net would initially provide preliminary authorization for such claims, which would then result in the facilities accepting the patients and beginning treatment with the understanding that their treatment would be reimbursed at the 75% billable rate, Health Net then began denying all claims en masse under the guise of suspected fraud. Curiously, however, this all came at a time when Health Net was being purchased by Centene for $6.3 billion, which has resulted in the suspicion that Health Net was simply trying to make itself appear more profitable on paper during the acquisition by Centene. Eventually, Health Net began to remove treatment facilities out of the SIU, but then implemented a policy to only pay reimbursement at the Medicare rate of 8% of the billable amount. Sadly, this has resulted in many facilities being forced out of business and turning their drug addicted patients away without any further meaningful hope for treatment. While Health Net continues to deny it engaged in any wrongdoing, it appears the California Department of Insurance for one disagrees with Health Net’s position. The CDI has pursued enforcement actions against Health Net, and in so doing has alleged that Health Net engaged in "unfair or deceptive" business practices by failing to settle provider claims fairly in which its liability "had become reasonably clear." For more information and a more detailed summary of the history of these issues, feel free to read the LA Times Article from December 6, 2017, by Michael Hiltzik, by clicking HERE. Related Tags:


California anti-discrimination laws are very strong, and they make it illegal for an employer to take adverse employment action against you if you are a member of a protected class, or category of persons.  In general, it is unlawful to discrimination against an employ based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and other protected categories.  Disabilities also entitle employees to protection and reasonable accommodations, whether the disability be a physical or cognitive disability or pregnancy. Discrimination may take many forms, including being denied a job, terminated from a position, demoted, denied a promotion, or assigned to a position that is not as favorable or financially lucrative as another position to which you qualify. Our office has recently filed two discrimination-based cases.  In one case, our client alleges that Miles Preservation, Inc. discriminated against her due to her status as a pregnant and expecting mother.  The allegations of discrimination include terminating her before her pregnancy leave date began, which is a mandatory right for all women to exercise without fear of retaliation.  You can read the complaint by clicking HERE. In another, more recent case, our client alleges that Pipeline Carriers, Inc. discriminated against him for suffering a cognitive disability, refused to grant him reasonable accommodations, and refused to grant him proper medical leave.  Even though our client had a doctor’s note mandating that he remain off work for a specified period of time, the company considered him to have “abandoned” his job and terminated him and refused to accommodate his request for medical leave.  You can read this complaint by clicking HERE. If you or a loved one feel that you have suffered discrimination or retaliation for simply being a member of a protected class, or for suffering a disability, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your rights have been violated.


The Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires that anytime an employer makes a decision to not hire an applicant due to results of a background check, the employer must provide the applicant an opportunity to dispute the findings. The employer has the legal responsibility to provide the applicant with what is called an “adverse action notice”.  This notice explains the applicant’s rights under the FCRA if the employer decides to take an action determined to be “adverse”.  An “adverse action” constitutes a decision of the employer to not hire, promote, retain or reassign the applicant based on the results of a background check report. The “adverse action notice” must be delivered to the applicant before the adverse action is actually taken.  This procedure is intended to provide the applicant with a copy of the background check report and “A Summary of Your Rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act”. By requiring the notice and report to be provided before the action is actually taken, the intent is to allow the job applicant a reasonable amount of time to contact the background check agency to dispute any inaccurate information in the report. Our office has recently filed a class action lawsuit against HKA Enterprises, LLC for failing to comply with these requirements of the FCRA.  HKA Enterprises utilized information contained within a background check report to not hire our client, but it failed to provide the required adverse action notice and a copy of the report to our client.  Please review the Complaint by clicking HERE. If you have suffered a similar set of circumstances, please do not hesitate to contact our office for a free and confidential consultation to determine whether your rights have also been violated in such a way.

Mortgage Servicers Continue to Ignore Deferment Protections for California Military under State Law

It should go without saying that the stress and worry of being deployed is high enough on its own. Add to that stress the concerns over mortgage loans, vehicle loans, credit cards, student loans, and leaving property in storage for several months. Fortunately, California law provides such protections to military reservists that goes much farther than the protections afforded by the Federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. For instance, California Military and Veterans Code 800 provides military reservists called to active duty very strong protections with respect to up to 6 months of deferment on mortgage loans, residential lease contracts, automobile loans, credit cards, and other consumer debts. During this time, no penalties can be assessed against the account for non-payment, the account cannot be reported as delinquent or negative to credit reporting agencies, and no foreclosure proceedings on a mortgage loan can be undertaken. These protections apply equally to the deployed servicemember’s spouse and dependents. One way that the California law is stronger than the Federal law is that, unlike the Federal law, the State law does not require petitioning the courts to first obtain an order of deferment, because the protections are required to be given if the servicemember simply provides a letter to the creditor, sworn under penalty of perjury, specifically requesting such a deferment and includes a copy of the deployment orders therein. If the credit/loan obligation was incurred before the date of the deployment orders, then the protections are mandatory. Unfortunately, however, we have seen a disturbing pattern over the years where out-of-state mortgage servicing companies fail to understand California laws in this regard and fail to honor and respect these State laws. But our firm is here to help, as we have extensive knowledge and experience in these laws. We even met with the Colonel who was integral in the writing and passing of these laws to gain a better understanding and insight into their application. This means you and your loved can trust in our ability to handle these claims and advocate on your behalf. Recently, we filed two new lawsuits against such mortgage companies who just can’t seem to get it right. On November 8, 2018, we filed a lawsuit against Pacific Union Financial, LLC, which you can view by clicking HERE. On November 10, 2018, we filed a complaint against Selene Finance, LP, which you can view HERE. In each case, the spouse left home during the servicemembers’ deployment has had to endure the completely unnecessary stress and aggravation of dealing with repeated false claims of delinquency and false claims of the amounts owed on each mortgage loan. During a time that is hard enough for the non-deployed spouse to be left home addressing all the family financial responsibilities alone, they were forced to endure more stress that they should have been able to trust would not have arisen. If you or a loved one are experiencing similar problems, please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss your rights and whether our firm can help protect you as well.

Finding the Right Attorney

Finding a Consumer Attorney With the increased use of consumer review sites, an individual can find a good lawyer in 10 minutes.  They can look at reviews that the attorney has on sites such as Yelp, AVVO, Google-reviews, and even the attorney’s own website.  Review sites are easy to access and almost always free of charge.  It is highly recommended that an individual takes the time to read the reviews available when searching for an attorney. Most law firms have a website that describes the attorney’s experience and what the attorney’s reason is for believing that she or he is the best for the job. An individual should feel confident in going to a consumer lawyer, or any lawyer for that matter, and asking the tough questions as if it was a job interview. That’s because it really is somewhat like a job interview for a job that the lawyer is trying to obtain. The consumer should have no problem asking how many years the lawyer has been practicing, how many cases they have filed, how many times they have sued a defendant, and whether they have ever gone to trial. Most individuals think that all lawyers go to trial, but that is not the case. Approximately 90% of lawyers have never gone to trial, and many who have gone to trial have not gone enough times to develop and sharpen quality trial skills. It is vital for a potential client to know such information from his potential attorney. Imagine looking for a brain surgeon, you would want to know if that surgeon has done other brain surgeries before going to them. The same applies for a lawyer. Make sure that when you speak to someone at the law firm, you talk to a lawyer, not a paralegal, law clerk or an assistant. Make sure that you can contact the lawyer after your meeting with additional questions, whether through email, cell phone calls or text messages. These are the things that our firm gives to our clients, which builds trust and confidence. In some ways, engaging in potential or actual litigation is like going into a relationship with that law firm or that lawyer. You need to have a sense of connection with that individual. You need to feel they care about you, believe they understand you, feel comfortable and confident standing next to that individual in front of a courtroom full of jurors or a judge, and you must feel like they can advocate for you. You want them to be able to tell your story even when the other side is trying to derail it. The only way to do that is to speak to the lawyer on the phone or see them in person so that you can get a sense from them. Are they compassionate about you? Do they care about you? Are they willing to fight for you? If you get that sense from a lawyer, then you are in good hands. That’s something an individual can use in evaluating any lawyer for any purpose, not just a consumer law lawyer. Role of a Consumer Law Attorney One role of a consumer law attorney is to counsel people and inform them of their rights. Most individuals don’t know that debt collection harassment laws can protect them or that inaccurate credit reporting laws allow them to recover monetary damages.  Another role of a consumer law attorney is to help the client pursue violations of these laws. Some of these laws require very specific steps to be taken before rights are triggered to protect and ultimately compensate the consumer. A consumer attorney should take the proper steps to ensure that the client understands the law and knows what steps need to be taken for his rights to be protected.  If necessary, the attorney’s role is to represent the client to escalate the situation into formal litigation whereby the client can use the power of the courts to obtain the appropriate amount of monetary damages for the consumer. Sometimes that means facilitating a settlement, and sometimes that means preparing a case to be presented to a jury at trial. Skills to Look for in an Attorney Obviously, an attorney who seeks to represent consumers should be familiar with the law. Not all attorneys are educated in all areas of the law. Therefore, it is generally recommended that a consumer-related case be handled by an attorney who has dedicated his practice to focus on consumer rights. A consumer attorney will most likely have regular exposure to the technical nuances that sometimes prevent consumers from being able to fully take advantage of the laws that are in place to protect their interests.  Unfortunately, the number one goal for a corporate defendant usually is attempting to avoid liability by taking advantage of failures of the consumer in following strict and technical compliance of the various prerequisite steps in hopes of eliminating the consumer’s ability to be fully compensated and fully protected. A consumer attorney should know of, and be prepared for, technical defense strategies and know how to avoid them. An attorney should inform the consumer about potential pitfalls and lead them to a position where no technical flaws exist, leaving the defense to have no other choice but to address the consumer’s case on its merits and value. It is significantly helpful if the attorney has previously represented clients at trial.  If a lawyer doesn’t regularly go to trial or has not had any real experience in prosecuting cases to trial, then they are ultimately at a serious disadvantage, as they lack the experience to know what to do if the case is not able to be settled before trial.  An attorney who lacks the knowledge and experience to go to trial is no different than a gun that lacks bullets—the unloaded gun gives the impression to others that it could cause harm, but without bullets, it lacks the necessary ability to complete the job that it was assigned to do. The ability to prepare a client’s case and ultimately present the case at trial are things that we bring to the table. We not only know how to prosecute a case to the end, but we look forward to it.  We have each completed over 30 trials, which means that we are familiar with what it takes to prepare a case, what constitutes admissible evidence, how to present the evidence at trial, how to argue trial motions and objections in front of the judge, and, most importantly, how to persuasively present our client’s story to a jury. Until you have repeatedly represented a client before a jury, you will not appreciate the value and power that a jury trial has in resolving a dispute in litigation.  After repeated trials, we know that a trial before members of the community is sometimes the most powerful weapon that a consumer has against corporate America. It is the consumer’s peers that can, and most times do, hold corporations responsible for taking advantage of consumers and refusing to take responsibility for the harms they have caused.  It is for this reason that an effective consumer attorney must also be a trial attorney; otherwise, they are seriously putting their client at a disadvantage. Can I Afford an Experienced Attorney? In the majority of cases, experienced consumer law firms pay for all the costs and fees associated with the lawsuit (including hiring experts, funding depositions, traveling to different states to take depositions and presenting a case to trial) without charging the client anything up front.  So, the answer is almost always yes.  In such “contingency” fee cases, the attorney is only paid for his time and reimbursed his out of pocket costs if the litigation results in a successful recovery. Impact of Experience, Reputation and Skill We look at every lawsuit like a chess match. We evaluate the defense firms, evaluate the defense attorneys, and rank their ability to persuasively present a defense. We presume that the defendants are doing the exact same thing by evaluating our firm. They are evaluating the way we have prosecuted cases in the past and evaluating our ability to pursue the lawsuit all the way to a jury trial. It’s a huge factor that plays into cases that is not acknowledged but considered when it comes to negotiations. Defense attorneys won’t admit, “I’m settling the case with you because I know you’ll pursue the case to trial.” However, it’s common sense that they are taking such a factor into consideration. In fact, I used to work for insurance defense firms defending personal injury cases, and he learned that the considerations by the defense industry always involved evaluating the lawyer representing the plaintiff, including their ability to prosecute the case to trial. A good trial lawyer would get a higher value settlement than a lawyer that clearly didn’t have the experience or the ability to pursue the case to trial. How Do I Know If It’s Necessary to Hire a Consumer Law Attorney for My Case? You might discover that it’s necessary when you yourself try to send a written dispute asking the credit reporting agencies or the furnishers to correct an error and they refuse to do so or simply ignore you. In such circumstances, you might feel lost and helpless as to what else could be done to protect yourself and assert your rights.  Therefore, it is advisable to seek the assistance of an attorney from the very beginning. This is because you want somebody who is navigating the laws and pitfalls in the right way. You want somebody who is going to stand by you if the companies ignore you, and you want somebody who is going to seek monetary damages for you if your requests are ignored or mishandled. For more information on Finding The Right Consumer Law Attorney, an initial consultation is your next best step. Get the information and legal answers you are seeking by calling our office at (951) 293-4187.