Gallego v. Hunts and Henriques, CLP
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-07596
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gallego v. Hunts and Henriques, Judge Chhabria granted summary judgment because Gallego offered no evidence the firm sent the fake summons.
Diane Gallego and Hunts and Henriques, CLP; the ruling favored Hunts and Henriques, CLP.
What happened
In Gallego v. Hunts and Henriques, Diane Gallego sued the law firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after receiving a fake summons saying she had to appear in state court over a debt.
Hunts and Henriques argued that Gallego had no evidence the firm created or served the fake summons. The firm submitted evidence that it had denied sending the summons and had reported similar fake summonses to authorities. Gallego argued that the firm had created the summons to gain leverage in a different debt lawsuit, but she submitted no supporting evidence.
The court ruled that attorney arguments were not evidence and that no reasonable jury could find the firm liable on this record. Judge Chhabria granted Hunts and Henriques’s motion for summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Gallego v. Hunts and Henriques, CLP · No. 3:19-cv-07596
- Vince Chhabria
- June 12, 2020
Background
Diane Gallego sued Hunts and Henriques, CLP (H&H), under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after receiving a summons telling her to appear in Santa Clara Superior Court in response to a purported lawsuit by H&H on behalf of Synchrony Bank. The opinion states that everyone agreed the summons was fake. Although Gallego owed Synchrony Bank a debt, no lawsuit based on that debt had been filed in state court, and Synchrony Bank was not H&H’s client.
Motion and evidence
H&H moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial when the record shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party. H&H argued that Gallego had not produced evidence showing that H&H created or served the fake summons, which the opinion identifies as necessary to establish liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provisions at issue, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) and (9).
H&H submitted a declaration from one of its partners denying that H&H sent the summons. The declaration also stated that many nearly identical fake summonses bearing H&H’s name had been sent to other debtors and provided evidence that H&H had reported the scheme to the California State Bar and the Santa Clara Superior Court.
Gallego did not oppose the motion with evidence supporting her claim. Instead, she argued that H&H had created the summons to strengthen its negotiating position in a different lawsuit H&H had brought against her for another creditor, Citibank. The court said that this attorney argument was not evidence. Gallego also did not submit a declaration explaining why she could not present supporting facts or asking the court to defer the motion for additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that a reasonable jury could not hold H&H liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on the record presented. Although the summons bore H&H’s name, Gallego offered no evidence rebutting H&H’s evidence that it was a victim rather than the perpetrator of the broader fake-summons scheme.
Disposition
Judge Vince Chhabria granted H&H’s motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.