Janey Brown V. Duringer Law Group Plc Et Al

Parties Involved

  • Plaintiff: Janey Brown | Bing Guo | Junxian Zhang
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Louis P Dell | John Louis Dell
  • Defendant: Duringer Law Group PLC | Stephen C Duringer | Peter Wong | Judy Wong | Does
    • Counsel for Defendant: Edward L Laird | Stephen C Duringer | Curtis Tyler Greer

Verdict Information

  • Verdict date: May 16, 2024
  • Total damages awarded to the Plaintiff: $0.00

About the Case


The defendants engaged in collecting debts allegedly owed by the plaintiff, including a money judgment, attorney fees, and other costs. Defendants Duringer Law Group and Stephen C. Duringer, considered debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Acts), claimed accrued interest of $2,750 and collection costs of $3,780. The defendants also claimed duplicate interest and unreasonable collection costs. All debts sought for collection were subject to the FDCPA and California Rosenthal Act.

Each defendant allegedly imposed and collected amounts not owed, unreasonable amounts, excessive costs, and flat fees that did not reflect actual expenses. There was an agreement, if any, between the Wongs and the defendants that implied no cost to the Wongs. The agreement either was not enforced or was merely nominal. The Wongs did not pay Duringer for any services related to collecting the plaintiffs’ debt.

The defendants’ actions violated the FDCPA, including making false, deceptive, or misleading representations and using unfair means to collect debts. The defendants also failed to disclose the right of verification and engaged in harassment. These violations are assessed under the least sophisticated consumer standard, designed to protect uninformed or naïve consumers targeted by debt collectors.

Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ acts and omissions violated the FDCPA and sought damages, attorney fees, and costs. The complaint also alleged violations of the California Rosenthal Act, with similar claims for damages, attorney fees, and costs. Both causes of action highlighted that the defendants’ practices were motivated by enhanced collection revenues and affected numerous consumers, including the plaintiff.


As a direct result of all acts and omissions, each Plaintiff was entitled to statutory damages. Each Plaintiff allegedly suffered actual damages, including pecuniary loss and potential or actual credit rating damage. They faced difficulty obtaining credit or favorable terms and abstained from applying for credit. Plaintiffs also experienced adverse actions on existing accounts or credit denials. They feared further levies on accounts and property for money not owed. Each suffered emotional distress, such as anxiety, embarrassment, shame, depression, and feelings of powerlessness. Additional symptoms included anguish, irritability, inability to concentrate, loss of sleep, nightmares, daily worry, headaches, and malaise.


The Plaintiffs prayed for judgment against each defendant. For the first cause of action against Duringer Law Group, Stephen C. Duringer, and Does 1-10, they sought actual damages according to proof, statutory damages of no less than $1,000 for each violation, reasonable attorney fees, and costs of the suit. For the second cause of action against Peter Wong, Judy Wong, Duringer Law Group, Stephen C. Duringer, and Does 1-10, they requested actual damages according to proof, statutory damages of no less than $1,000 for each violation, reasonable attorney fees, costs of the suit, and any further relief the court deemed just and equitable.

Jury Verdict

On May 16, 2024, a California jury returned the verdict in favor of the defendants. The jury found that the defendants did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages.

On May 28, 2024, Judge David O. Carter entered a judgment affirming the jury verdict. Further, the Court granted the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion on the Rosenthal Act claim, dismissed that claim, and awarded the Defendants attorney fees of $5,963.60 against the Plaintiffs as of November 10, 2021.

Court Documents:

Available upon request