There have been slim pickings thus far this week in the Ninth Circuit and the California appellate courts. Maybe later in the week we'll see some blockbusters.
Meanwhile, I did have at least a brief reaction to this opinion from earlier today, even if it's only a reaction to the underlying facts.
It's about a woman who wakes up one day to her employer telling her that her wages are about to be garnished for a $8,500+ judgment that she's never even heard about before. She comes to eventually discover that around a decade earlier, a debt collector had filed suit and obtained a default judgment against her in this amount. She contacted the company and told them that she'd never heard of this lawsuit before, and certainly had never been served with it, but they told her to pound sand.
Everyone agrees that she was never personally served. But the debt collector says that a process server back in the day served someone at one of her old addresses listed on its files -- a place where she didn't live, but where her brother, stepfather and mother lived -- and that the person served was "John Doe, a white male approx. 30–35 years of age 5’6”–5’8” in height weighing 140–160 lbs with black hair,” who was “a competent member of the household . . . at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of [Young].” So the debt collector says that the substitute service, and hence the default judgment, is valid.
To be honest, I'm super suspicious. I mean, can you even think of a more generic description for the guy you allegedly served? Basically: white guy, 30s, average height, average weight, black hair. I'm sure that describes a lot of people. But at the same time, way too many. I'd definitely want to know more before I concluded that service was valid; in particular, what the brother looked like. 'Cause it sure ain't the mom or stepdad, and I'm worried that someone might have just popped in a general description.
In any event, the question is whether there was actual service, and everyone at the address denies that they ever got served, so there's at least a question of fact.
But the debt collector insists upon collection, and when it doesn't relent, the woman sues, claiming unfair debt collection. The debt collector then files an anti-SLAPP motion, which it wins, and then seeks over $78,000 (!) in attorney's fees.
What if this were you? Can you imagine waking up one day to find out that someone's trying to garnish your wages for a lawsuit you've never heard about before? And then, when you challenge it, you end up owing potentially another $75,000+ on top of the alleged debt?
I mean, what if she's right that she was never served? It is really right that she gets pounded like this?
Fortunately, the Court of Appeal largely reverses. As well as awards costs to the woman on appeal.
I just keep going back to the fact that this woman -- Kacie Young -- could be any of us. Maybe, of course, she owed the debt, and was actually served, and knew about the judgment the whole time.
But it's also eminently plausible to me that she totally didn't.
