Lower Court Properly Struck $251 In Expenses For Plaintiff Meeting With Attorney Because They Were Not Damages Under The Three Statutes, But Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Solidified Prevailing Party Status.
Plaintiff in UHG I, LLC v. Tran, Case No. H053223 (6th Dist. Nov. 2, 2026) (unpublished), was the victim of identity theft, suing a creditor after it attempted collection efforts only to finally cease when it was clear the alleged debt was the product of identity theft. Plaintiff sued for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees under three statutes: California’s Identity Theft Act (CITA); the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act); and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). After a bench trial, the lower court found liability under all three statutes, awarding favorable declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages of $251 for some personal expenses in meeting his attorney, and prevailing party attorney’s fees status.
Except for one minor change, those determinations were affirmed on appeal. The $251 damages were stricken under all statutes because they were not true damages, more akin to personal expenses or costs. All three statutes provide for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing consumer. (See, e.g., CITA—Civ. Code, § 1798.93(c)(5) & § 1788.17 [later provision making debt collection under CITA subject to FDCPA remedies]; Rosenthal Act—Civ. Code, § 1788.30(c); and FDCPA—15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).) Because the liability grounds were not reversed, the judgment entitling plaintiff to fees was not disturbed.