HOLDINGS: [1]-A credit card collection action was timely under Code Civ. Proc., § 337, which applied instead of Code Civ. Proc., § 339, because the debtor accepted new terms under Civ. Code, § 1698, by using the card; [2]-The debt was a consumer debt under Civ. Code, § 1788.2, subd. (f), and the account’s terms, and an assignee was a debt collector under § 1788.2, subd. (c), because its collection agent was a closely related entity; [3]-Prejudgment interest was not waived because a charged-off account did not require statements; [4]-Statutory prejudgment interest under Civ. Code, §§ 3287, 3289, subd. (b), was unavailable under § 3289, subd. (a), because the contract provided for interest, but no violation of Civ. Code, §§ 1788.1, 1788.17, resulted from seeking a lower rate; [5]-A narrow fee provision did not support fees under Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a), for defending counterclaims.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. counsels on PAGA Statue of Limitations
Outcome
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.