Attorney Ian Dipak Chowdhury's Legal Cases

Consumer protection

Portfolio Recovery Associates v. Tran (2016) Case No. 30-2014-00715511

Jan 22, 2016

OUTCOME: The original trial court judgment was in favor of PRA, however on appeal Mr. Chowdhury obtained a reversal of the trial court judgment and a ruling in favor of his client, the consumer.

PRA sued Mr. Chowdhury's client, a consumer, in Orange County Superior Court. PRA alleged it had acquired a defaulted credit card. At trial, Mr. Chowdhury cross-examined PRA's witness and establish ... ed that the witness had no basis for understanding the documents upon which PRA based its allegations. Judge Cramin acknowledged the only conclusion to be drawn after Mr. Chowdhury's cross-examination was that the PRA witness apparently thought the documents were created "by magic". Nevertheless, Judge Cramin ruled against Mr. Chowdhury's client and in favor of the debt collector, PRA. Mr. Chowdhury appealed the judgment, arguing that the PRA witness's lack of any apparent basis for alleged knowledge was fatal to PRA's case. On appeal, the reviewing judges agreed with Mr. Chowdhury and ruled in favor of the consumer by reversing the judgment of the trial court.

Consumer protection

Sierra Managed Assets v. Hale (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1

Aug 20, 2015

OUTCOME: Mr. Chowdhury prevailed on behalf of the consumer, because the collector's witness lacked the personal knowledge to testify. This is among the few "published" decisions involving consumer debt and has had a powerful influence in the field of debt defense.

Debt buyer Sierra Managed Assets sued a consumer, alleging that it (Sierra) had a acquired a credit card account on which the consumer had allegedly defaulted. The consumer denied the allegations an ... d represented himself at trial. The trial court ruled against the consumer and issued a judgment against him. The consumer then hired attorney Ian Chowdhury to appeal the judgment. Mr. Chowdhury pursued an appeal based on the fact that the witness who testified on behalf of the debt buyer did not have personal knowledge concerning the subjects about which he testified. Mr. Chowdhury argued that the debt buyer's evidence should therefore have been excluded by the trial judge, and that the judgment should be reversed.

Consumer protection

CACH v. Rodgers (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1

Aug 05, 2014

OUTCOME: Mr. Chowdhury prevailed on behalf of the consumer, by getting the judgment reversed. This is among the very few "published" decisions involving consumer debt defense and has had a powerful influence in the field of consumer debt defense.

Debt buyer CACH, LLC sued a consumer concerning an alleged defaulted credit card account, that CACH claimed it had acquired. The consumer denied the allegations, but she was unrepresented at trial, ... and lost the case. The consumer then hired attorney Ian Chowdhury to appeal from the judgment. Mr. Chowdhury based the appeal on the fact that CACH had not complied with proper procedures to submit it's evidence at trial. In particular, CACH relied at trial upon a "declaration in lieu of testimony" without making the witness available for questioning at trial. There was no way to properly test the credibility of CACH's evidence, which was important because the consumer disputed the allegations. Mr. Chowdhury argued that, if the improper evidence had been properly excluded, then the consumer would have prevailed, and therefore the judgment should be reversed.

Ian Dipak Chowdhury's Legal Cases (3)

Portfolio Recovery Associates v. Tran (2016) Case No. 30-2014-00715511

Sierra Managed Assets v. Hale (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1

CACH v. Rodgers (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1