Gardner v. City of Berkeley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the name of an employer and a phone number are generic and do not refer to a debt
• finding no FDCPA communication where the caller merely stated his name and company and asked that the consumer call him back
• finding no FDCPA communication where the caller merely stated his name and company and asked that the consumer call him back
• “Insofar as plaintiff contends that defendant violated [the FDCPA] when it used ‘false representation[s] or deceptive means’ to collect the asserted debt, such allegations are conclusory and insufficient to withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).