Skip to main content
Robert Lyman Hyde

Robert Hyde’s Legal Cases

7 total

  • Bellows v. NCO Fin. Sys., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 297 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Jan 05, 2009
    Outcome:
    Prevailed
    Description:
    Class Action TCPA Case
  • Shaw v. Credit Collection Servs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117248 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Debt Collection
    Date:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Outcome:
    Prevailed
    Description:
    Consumer rights action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.32 (“Rosenthal Act”). Consumer (client) was being abused by a debt collector.
  • Hyde v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 567 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. Cal. 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Jun 09, 2009
    Outcome:
    The award of attorney's fees and costs was reversed.
    Description:
    The parties agreed that the district court erred in awarding attorney's fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 by not following the rule's requirements. For purposes of the appeal, the court assumed without deciding that plaintiff's action was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.S. � 1692k(a)(3). However, the court held that attorney's fees and costs may not be awarded against a plaintiff's attorney under 15 U.S.C.S. � 1692k(a)(3). There was a general presumption that an attorney was generally not liable for fees unless that prospect was spelled out, and Congress failed to indicate any intention to authorize the award of attorney's fees and costs against attorneys representing debtors in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
  • Mayer v. Mae, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76240 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Debt Collection
    Date:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Outcome:
    Prevailed
    Description:
    Consumer rights action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.32 (“Rosenthal Act”). Consumer (client) was being abused by a debt collector.
  • Johnson v. Prof'l Collection Consultants, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52827 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Debt Collection
    Date:
    May 28, 2010
    Outcome:
    Pending
    Description:
    Consumer rights action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.32 (“Rosenthal Act”). Consumer (client and military member) was being abused by a debt collector.
  • Del Rio v. CreditAnswers, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89181 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Debt Settlement
    Date:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Outcome:
    Pending
    Description:
    The Complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200; (2) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1770(a)(7), 1770(a)(19); (3) violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. 1679; (4) intentional interference with contractual relations; (5) tort in essence; (6) negligence per se; and (7) declaratory relief. The Complaint includes class action allegations related to three putative classes consisting of "all persons in California" who have "engaged the ... services of CreditAnswers" in the four years preceding the filing of the Complaint. The Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a permanent injunction, attorney's fees, and "the Contract [between Plaintiff and Defendant] be adjudged rescinded and canceled." The Complaint alleges that "Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages in excess of $5,000...."
  • Murphy v. Repossession Specialists, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50681 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Outcome:
    Prevailed
    Description:
    Consumer rights action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.32 (“Rosenthal Act”). Consumer (client) was being abused by a debt collector.