Flores v. Rawlings Co., LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that although the defendant’s collection activities might have violated state statutes, the plaintiffs were not injured by paying the underlying debt because the debt was valid
• granting summary judgment under consumer-protection statute because claimants did not “demonstrate[] that they were injured as a result of [business’s] violation” of the statute
• construing the injury requirement for a UDAP claim under HRS § 480-13(b)
• while \any person\ may sue based on anticompetitive activity, suits based on deceptive trade practices are limited to consumers
• while “any person” may sue based on anticompetitive activity, suits based on deceptive trade practices are limited to consumers
• “In order for [the defendant’s] failure to register [as a collection agency as required by HRS § 443B-3] to be actionable by private litigants [pursuant to HRS § 480-2], the threshold requirements of HRS § 480-13 must be satisfied.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).