Josh Swigart

2221 Camino Del Rio South
Suite 101
San Diego, California  92108

Phone: 619.233.7770
Fax: 619.297.1022

westcoastlitigation.com

josh@westcoastlitigation.com

JOSHUA B. SWIGART

PARTNER

Mr. Swigart was born in Orange County, California. He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of California at Riverside where he received a Bachelor of Science in Business with a double emphasis in Accounting and Finance. He attended California Western School of Law on an academic scholarship and graduated Cum Laude.

Mr. Swigart is a licensed attorney admitted to the State Bar of California as well as Washington D.C. He is a member of the San Diego County Bar Association, Riverside County Bar Association, San Bernardino County Bar Association, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the Federal Bar Association, Consumer Attorneys of California, the American Association of Justice, and the Enright Inns of Court.

NOTABLE CONSUMER ACTIONS

Mr. Swigart has handled over 1,000 consumer actions, including numerous national class actions. A few of the notable published cases Mr. Swigart has been a part of are:


  • CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court, 159 Cal. App. 273 (2008); (Allowing the original plaintiff who lacked standing in a class action to conduct pre-certification discovery of the identities of potential plaintiffs with standing)


  • Kight v. CashCall, Inc., 200 Cal. App. 4th 1377 (2011); (Co-lead counsel on a class action involving privacy rights under Cal. Penal Code § 632 et seq. Appeals court reversing the trial courts granting of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment after case was certified)


  • Engelen v. Erin Capital Management, LLC, et al., No. 12-55039 (9th Cir. 2013, not for publication, D.C. No.: 3:10-cv-01125-BEN-RBB)(Reversing the lower court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant debt collector on the basis of the bona fide error defense and remanding for further proceedings)


  • Sherman v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13286; 13-CV-0041-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.)(TCPA class action where Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied holding that a single call or text message with the use of an ATDS may be actionable under the TCPA)


  • Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005)(Summary judgment was granted sua sponte in favor of a debtor where debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when its employees failed to disclose the debt collector’s identity and the nature of its business in the messages left on the debtor’s answering machine). This case has now been followed in at least four different districts throughout the country


  • Forsberg v. Fid. Nat’l Credit Servs., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7622 (S.D. Cal. 2004)(Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support his claim that a collection company, in its initial communication, did not comply with the statutory requirements for notice of validation of debts under the FDCPA)


  • Owings v. Hunt & Henriques, et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91819 (S.D. Cal.); (Recognizing that the Service Members Civil Relief Act applies to California National Guard Members and that the debt collection attorney’s false declaration the court violates the FDCPA)


  • Heathman v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98742 (S.D. Cal. 2013)(Holding that failing to properly list and disclose the identify of the original creditor in a state collection pleading is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e)).


NOTABLE CLASS ACTIONS

Mr. Swigart regularly presents and lectures on cutting edge consumer related issues, including class action developments, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Hyde and Swigart, under the guidance of Mr. Swigart is responsible for the following notable class action settlements and pending class actions:


  • Bellows v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., 07-CV-01413 W(AJB) (S.D. Cal)(One of the first class action settlements under the TCPA in the nation; Hyde & Swigart served as co-lead counsel; final approval grated in 2009)


  • Adams v. AllianceOne, Inc., 08-CV-0248 JAH (S.D. Cal) (Nationwide TCPA class settlement providing class relief of $40 per claiming class member resulting in over $2,500,000 paid to claiming class members; final approval granted in 2013)


  • Lemieux v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., 08-CV-1012 IEG(POR) (S.D. Cal.)(Co-lead counsel on a national TCPA class settlement providing class recovery in the amount of $70 for each claiming class member; final approval granted in 2011)


  • Gutierrez, et al. v. Barclays Group, et al., 10-CV-1012 DMS(BGS)(Common fund created in the amount of $8,262,500 based on the receipt of unsolicited text messages; final approval granted 2012)


  • Knutson, et al. v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., 12-CV-00964-GPC-DHB (S.D. Cal.)(Heavily contested TCPA class action; Currently serving as co-lead counsel and obtaining class certification (Sept. 2013)


  • Malta, et al. v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, et al., 10-CV-1290 IEG(BLM)(Served as co-lead counsel for a settlement class of borrowers in connection with residential or automotive loans and violations of the TCPA in attempts to collect on those accounts; obtained a common settlement fund in the amount of $17,100,000; final approval granted in 2013)


  • Conner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., 10-CV-1284 DMS(BGS) (S.D. Cal.)(Currently serving as co-lead counsel for the settlement class of borrowers in connection with residential loans and TCPA violations stemming from the collection of those accounts)


  • In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, 11-md-2286 MMA(MDD) (S.D. Cal.) (Counsel for a Plaintiff in the lead action, prior to the action being recategorized through the multi-district litigation process; still actively involved in the MDL litigation and settlement process)


  • In Re: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, 11-md-02295-JAH(BGS)(Counsel for a Plaintiff in the lead action, prior to the action being re-categorized through the multi-district litigation process; still actively involved in the MDL litigation and settlement process)


  • Arthur v. SLM Corporation, 10-CV-00198 JLR (W.D. Wash.)(Nationwide settlement achieving the then-largest monetary settlement in the history of the TCPA: $24.15; final approval granted in 2012)


  • Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, et al., 11-CV-1009-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal.)(Achieving one of the highest class member payouts in a TCPA action of $1,331.25; final approval granted in 2012)


  • Sarabri v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 10-01777-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.)(Approved as co-lead counsel and worked to obtain a national TCPA class settlement where claiming class members each received payment in the amount of $70.00; final approval granted in 2013)


  • Barani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 12-CV-02999-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.)(Class action settlement under the TCPA for the sending of unauthorized text messages to non-account holders in connection to wire transfers; preliminary approval pending)


  • Many the cases listed above, which have settled, have resulted in the creation of combined common funds and/or distribution to class members in the tens of millions of dollars. The outstanding results mentioned above are a direct result of the diligence and tenacity shown by Mr. Swigart and Hyde & Swigart in successfully prosecuting complex class actions.


EXPLORE OUR PRACTICE AREAS

DISCLAIMER

Hyde & Swigart has helped thousands of consumers in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Washington, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas, Illinois, and Washington DC with their legal issues, and we have never seen two cases that were identical. You should never assume your situation is the same as something that is described on this web site, or that you read elsewhere on the Internet. Each situation is unique, and in our opinion, each situation needs to be thoroughly and independently reviewed by a competent consumer rights attorney. While we are happy to do that for you for free, we cannot do that solely on this web site. Even our evaluation forms are mere starting points. You should never assume your case, your situation, or your set of facts, are covered in their entirety by this web site. If you have questions about your potential case, we will be glad to discuss them with you at no charge. However, do not act, or fail to act, simply because of something you read or see on this web site. Click here to read more.