Hunt & Henriques is the highest-volume debt collection law firm in California. If you have been served with a lawsuit by Hunt & Henriques, you are dealing with a firm that files more debt collection cases than any other law firm in the state — on behalf of major credit card issuers, banks, and debt buyers. They count on most defendants doing nothing. If you do nothing, they will obtain a default judgment and use it to garnish your wages, levy your bank account, or place a lien on your property. You have rights, and you have defenses. But they expire fast. You must respond.
Who Is Hunt & Henriques?
Hunt & Henriques, LLP is a debt collection law firm founded in 1982 and headquartered in San Jose, California. The firm operates exclusively in California and specializes in the recovery of delinquent consumer obligations — primarily credit card debt — on behalf of major credit card issuers, banks, auto lenders, and debt buyers. Research by the Debt Collection Lab analyzing over 2.2 million California court records found that Hunt & Henriques dominates California debt collection dockets, with the firm and a handful of similar high-volume collection firms accounting for two in five debt collection cases filed statewide.
Despite being a law firm, most of Hunt & Henriques’s employees are not licensed attorneys. The firm employs a small number of attorneys directly and supplements them with for-hire appearance attorneys who appear in courts across California on the firm’s behalf. Hunt & Henriques is required to be licensed under California’s Debt Collection Licensing Act, Financial Code § 100000 et seq. You can verify their current license status through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS) Consumer Access at nmlsconsumeraccess.org.
As a debt collector, Hunt & Henriques is subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code § 1788 et seq. The firm has faced multiple federal lawsuits for FDCPA violations:
- Brown v. Hunt & Henriques (N.D. Cal. 2016) — federal class action settled for failing to include proper FDCPA disclosures in collection letters sent to California consumers on behalf of Bank of America, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4). See the class action history here.
- Bautista v. Hunt & Henriques (N.D. Cal. 2012) — FDCPA and Rosenthal Act claims survived an anti-SLAPP motion; allegations included threatening to garnish wages and take the plaintiff’s home, communicating debt information to family members, and falsely representing that legal proceedings were imminent.
- Valdez v. Hunt & Henriques, 2002 WL 433595 (N.D. Cal. 2002) — federal court granted summary judgment against the firm for FDCPA violations.
You can review consumer complaints against Hunt & Henriques in the CFPB complaint database here.
How Hunt & Henriques Operates
Hunt & Henriques is retained by creditors and debt buyers to collect delinquent accounts through litigation. Their process is straightforward: they send collection letters, make calls, and when payment is not forthcoming, they file a lawsuit. The firm is not afraid to sue on small balances. They rely on volume — filing hundreds of cases per month statewide — and on the fact that most defendants do nothing in response.
As a debt collector, Hunt & Henriques must comply with the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act in all collection communications — including letters, calls, and court filings. California Civil Code § 1788.17 incorporates the FDCPA’s requirements and applies them to all collection activity in California. The firm’s documented history of FDCPA litigation demonstrates that it does not always meet those requirements.
What Happens When Hunt & Henriques Files a Lawsuit
When Hunt & Henriques files a lawsuit against you in California, you will be served with a summons and complaint. The summons identifies the case, the court, and the deadline to respond — typically 30 days from the date of service. The complaint states the amount claimed and the legal basis for the suit.
If you do not file a written response within 30 days, Hunt & Henriques can request a default judgment. The court may grant it without requiring them to prove their case. That judgment carries the full force of a court order and can be used immediately to garnish your wages under CCP § 706.050, levy your bank account under CCP § 700.140, or record a lien against your real property under CCP § 697.310.
Hunt & Henriques counts on defendants not responding. That is how the vast majority of their judgments are obtained.
If you have been served with a lawsuit from Hunt & Henriques, that is the moment to act.
Learn how to respond to a debt collection lawsuit in California →
Your Defenses Against Hunt & Henriques
Being sued by Hunt & Henriques does not mean you will lose. The firm files cases on behalf of creditors and debt buyers — and those clients must prove their case through Hunt & Henriques. Defenses available to California defendants include the statute of limitations — if your last payment or first delinquency on the account was more than four years ago, the debt is time-barred under CCP § 337 and must be dismissed if you raise this defense in your answer; lack of standing — the plaintiff must prove it owns the account through a complete chain of assignment from the original creditor under California Commercial Code § 9203 and Civil Code § 1788.52; insufficient proof of the debt — Hunt & Henriques must produce the original credit agreement, complete account statements, and proof that the amount claimed is accurate; and FDCPA and Rosenthal Act violations — if Hunt & Henriques violated either statute in its collection communications, those violations may be raised as counterclaims, with the firm’s documented litigation history making this a real consideration in any case.
Settling With Hunt & Henriques
Hunt & Henriques settles cases regularly — before trial, and sometimes even after judgment. The firm represents creditors and debt buyers who have financial incentives to resolve cases efficiently. Settlements of 30% to 60% of the claimed balance are common, particularly where the defendant has retained counsel or raised viable defenses.
Do not negotiate directly with Hunt & Henriques without understanding your rights and defenses. Consumer accounts and attorney reports consistently note that the firm attempts to pressure defendants into quick settlements before they understand their options. Get any settlement agreement in writing before making any payment. The agreement should state the amount being paid, that it constitutes full satisfaction of the account, and the creditor’s agreement regarding credit reporting. Any forgiven balance over $600 may be reported to the IRS as income on a 1099-C under 26 U.S.C. § 6050P.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who does Hunt & Henriques represent?
Hunt & Henriques represents major credit card issuers, banks, auto lenders, and debt buyers. Their clients include many of the largest credit card companies in the industry. When you are served by Hunt & Henriques, you are being sued on behalf of one of these creditors — not by Hunt & Henriques itself. The underlying creditor must prove its case through the firm.
Can Hunt & Henriques garnish my wages?
Only after obtaining a court judgment. Hunt & Henriques cannot garnish your wages without first filing a lawsuit, winning or obtaining a default judgment, and then securing a wage garnishment order. Even then, California law caps garnishment at 25% of your disposable earnings or the amount exceeding 40 times the state minimum wage — whichever is less. CCP § 706.050.
How long does Hunt & Henriques have to sue me in California?
Four years from the date of your last payment or first delinquency on the original account, under CCP § 337. If Hunt & Henriques files suit after that window has closed, the debt is time-barred — but you must raise that defense in your written response to the lawsuit.
What if I was never properly served by Hunt & Henriques?
If Hunt & Henriques filed a lawsuit and you were never properly served, you may have grounds to vacate any default judgment entered against you under CCP § 473. Act immediately — the longer a default judgment sits on your record, the more complicated the resolution becomes.
Can I sue Hunt & Henriques for FDCPA violations?
Yes. If Hunt & Henriques violates the FDCPA in its collection communications — including false representations, improper disclosures, or harassment — you may have a claim for actual damages, statutory damages up to $1,000, and attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. The one-year statute of limitations runs from the date of the violation. Federal courts have previously found FDCPA violations by Hunt & Henriques and entered judgment against the firm.
Legal references: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (FDCPA); 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; California Civil Code § 1788 et seq. (Rosenthal Act); California Civil Code §§ 1788.17, 1788.52; California Financial Code § 100000 et seq.; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337, 473, 697.310, 700.140, 706.050; California Commercial Code § 9203; 26 U.S.C. § 6050P. Key cases: Brown v. Hunt & Henriques, Case 5:15-cv-01111-EJD (N.D. Cal. 2016); Bautista v. Hunt & Henriques, (N.D. Cal. 2012); Valdez v. Hunt & Henriques, 2002 WL 433595 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Consumer complaints: CFPB Complaint Database — Hunt & Henriques. Class action history: ClassAction.org — Hunt & Henriques.