Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in California

Discussion Entitlement to Attorneys Fees Defendant LVNV moves for attorneys fees and costs as the prevailing party in this action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA), and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) . A prevailing party is defined to include a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

Defendants were engaged in the business of collecting debt by use of mail, telephone and other means, and therefore, were debt collectors under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). ( Id . at ¶5.) Defendants are vicariously liable for each others conduct and acting as the others agent. ( Id . at ¶¶6-8.) Plaintiff and Defendant Capital One entered into a settlement agreement in May 2022 concerning a consumer debt. ( Id . at ¶9.)

cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).

cause of action for violation under the RFDCPA fails because it is premised on CCS’s purported FDCPA violation, which correspondingly fails.

cause of action for violation under the RFDCPA fails because it is premised on CCS’s purported FDCPA violation, which correspondingly fails.

For the above reasons, this Court sustains the demurrer to the first cause of action of violations under the FDCPA with 30-days leave to amend. IV. The Second Cause of Action for Violation of the RFDCPA fails because the Violation of the RFDCPA is premised upon a Violation of the FDCPA. Because Beare has failed to allege sufficient facts that Credit Corp has violated the FDCPA, his cause of action under the RFDCPA also fails.

Their causes of action include claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), and the California Consumer Financial Protection Law. Piedmont voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice, but the Cross-Complaint remains pending. Piedmont now moves for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that its collection efforts were legally permissible and that the Cross-Complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.

Cross-Claimants have filed this cross-complaint against Chase for violations of the Fait Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788-1788.32, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Cross-Claimants allege Chase's filing of the lawsuit constitutes an unfair debt collection activity... as it has filed a lawsuit against all three Cross-Claimants that it knows is time-barred.

Cynthia Rose brought this action pursuant to the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civil Code § 1788-1788.32 – “RFDCPA”) and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692-1692p – “FDCPA”). Defendant is Aurora Bank, FSB. Plaintiffs allege: In 2005, they allegedly incurred a debt to Community West Bank, N.A. [Complaint ¶ 17] “Plaintiffs allegedly fell behind in the payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt.

Here, the question is whether cross-defendant’s mistake in filing their collection action based on mistaken identity amounts to violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) or the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). FDCPA To prevail on a FDCPA claim a plaintiff must show 1) she was the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt, 2) defendant is a debt collector, and 3) defendant engaged in a prohibited act or omission under FDCPA.

On February 27, 2025, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to both causes of action in Plaintiffs Complaint (violations of RFDCPA and UCL). Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 6, 2025. Defendant filed a reply on June 4, 2025. DISCUSSION A. First Cause of Action: Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), Cal. Civ.

Walker also alleges that cross-defendants filed the collection complaint after the statute of limitations expired, in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 28, and see Civ. Code § 1788.17 [incorporating obligations under the FDCPA into the RFDCPA].) On or about March 11, 2024, Walker amended the cross-complaint again to name Martin Weingarten, another MLG attorney.

Cynthia Rose brought this action pursuant to the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civil Code § 1788-1788.32 – “RFDCPA”) and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692-1692p – “FDCPA”). Defendant is Aurora Bank, FSB. Plaintiffs allege: In 2005, they allegedly incurred a debt to Community West Bank, N.A. [Complaint ¶ 17] “Plaintiffs allegedly fell behind in the payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt.

Defendant filed the collections action in Chatsworth, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 16921(a)(2). ( Id . at ¶13.) The collections action is reasonably calculated and likely to result in Plaintiff being confused, harassed and anxious, and violates multiple provisions of the FDCPA and the RFDCPA. ( Id . at ¶¶14-16.)

s ("MUFG") general demurrer to the first cause of action in Plaintiff Michael Klausler's Complaint for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"), on the grounds that (a) Plaintiff fails to allege facts indicating that the subject "transaction" with Defendant MUFG constituted a "consumer credit transaction" within the scope of the RFDCPA (see, e.g., Gouskos v. Aptos Vill. Garage (2001) 94 Cal.

This conduct by Defendant violated section 1788.14 subdivision (c) of the RFDCPA and section 1692c, subdivisions (a)(2) and (c) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). ( Id ., pp. 3-4 at ¶¶12-18.) Communicating with a debtor who is represented by an attorney is a violation of section 1692c, subdivision (a)(2) of the FDCPA.

In contrast to the FDCPA, the Rosenthal Act does not so limit the definition of “debt collector.”

Brown filed a cross-complaint against PCC, Todd Allen Shields, Clark Garen, and Wireless Receivables Acquisition Group, LLC, for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). On May 13, 2015, the court granted PCC’s and all cross-defendants’ motions for summary judgment. On July 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting summary judgment.

The first cause of action alleges a violation of Civil Code section 1788.17, within the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act . Section 1788.17 requires compliance with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 5 U.S.C. 1692, et seq.

Third, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the FDCPA and RFDCPA through their enforcement of their real property lien on the Property, such claim is also not persuasive. Defendants correctly assert that enforcement of a real property lien is not considered debt collection pursuant to the FDCPA or RFDCPA. (See Best v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 568.)

Lack of Damages and Lack of Standing Finally, Cross-Defendants argue that Cross-Complainant lacks standing to bring the FDBPA, FDCPA, and RFDCPA because Cross-Complainant suffered no actual damages. In support of their claim, Cross-Defendants cite and rely heavily on Limon v. Circle K Stores, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal. App. 5th 671 for the proposition that unless the FDBPA, FDCPA, and RFDCPA otherwise confer standing, Cross-Complainant must show a beneficial interest. (Limon, at pp. 700-703.)

FDCPA Claim Plaintiff’s fifth claim is for a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C § 1692 et seq. (FDCPA), the federal analogue to the RFDCPA. Plaintiff provides a list of statutes that multiple Defendants allegedly violated but omits the acts or facts that make up such alleged violations. (Complaint at ¶¶ 38-40.)

Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civ Code §§ 1788.13 and 1788.17) 2. Violation of Regulation F (12 C.F.R. Part 1006) 3. Violations of the Uniform Commercial Code and the California Uniform Commercial Code; and 4. Declaratory Relief. Plaintiff alleges that this action is brought under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), Cal Civ.

The Complaint pleads causes of action for (1) conversion (against Quality); (2) violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) (against Quality); (3) tortious interference with contract (against Exchange Stabilization Fund); (4) conversion (against Rocky McDonald); (5) violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) (against Rocky McDonald); (6) conversion (against Kevin R.

The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt

The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt

The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt

The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt

The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt

The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt

The Class Action Cross-Complaint, reclassified to unlimited jurisdiction, alleges: Page 1 of 4 (1) First Cause of Action against SLS only, violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”); (2) Second Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Third Cause of Action against all cross-defendants: violations of Rosenthal Fair Debt

Civil Code section 1812.700, subdivision (a) provides that “third-party debt collectors subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” shall provide a notice summarizing debtors’ rights under the FDCPA and RFDCPA with the first written notice to the debtor.

It asserts two causes of action, one under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and one under the state Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).

The fourth cause of action is for violations of Civil Code § 1788, et seq.: Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"). While under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), which the fourth cause of action alleges was violated, a mortgage servicer is not a debt collector, a mortgage servicer may be a debt collector under the California analog – RFDCPA. (Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1029, 1038; Davidson v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 283, 290.)

(a) FDCPA & RFDCPA As Defendants point out, Plaintiffs claims for violations of the FDCPA and RFDCPA fail because the subject debt relates to a business credit card, and the FDCPA and RFCPA apply only to consumer, rather than business, debts. (SSUF no. 7; Burton v. Kohn L. Firm, S.C. (7th Cir. 2019) 934 F.3d 572, 580.)

On May 23, 2014, KBR's MSA was granted as to Plaintiff's cause of action under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code ("CC") sections 1788, et seq. ("RFDCPA") (preempted by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ["FDCPA"]) and denied as to Plaintiff's cause of action under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, CC sections 1785.1, et seq. ("CCRAA").

The court finds that a bank or loan servicer is not excluded as a matter of law under the statutory definition of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and while ordinarily the RFDCPA does not encompass the mortgage foreclosure process, the complaint alleges extraneous fees and costs and an attempt to collect monies beyond those agreed to by the parties within the statute of limitations.

VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA AND RFDCPA The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 USC §1692-1692p) precludes abusive debt collection practices. (15 USC §1692(e).) California has determined that engaging in activities leading to a foreclosure do not constitute debt collection under the FDCPA. (Fonteno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1375-1377; Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1262-1263.)

The plaintiff argues the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) applies to lenders and loan servicers during foreclosure proceedings. Defendants contend the RFDCPA does not apply. While the U.S. District Court districts within California are in disagreement concerning the applicability of the RFDCPA to lenders and loan servicers when collecting on the deed of trust and during foreclosure proceedings, the Fourth District Court of Appeals has held the RFDCPA applies.

The RFDCPA incorporates the FDCPA, and that is the provision under which Kwak alleges his RFDCPA violation. Cal. Civ. Code §1788.17. [Cross-Complaint, ¶ 50.] “As under the FDCPA, a Rosenthal plaintiff must establish that (1) she is a “debtor” under section 1788.2(h), (2) the debt at issue is a “consumer debt” under section 1788.2(f), (3) the defendant is a “debt collector” under section 1788.2(c), and (4) the defendant violated one of the liability provisions of the RFDCPA.” Bartell v.

Plaintiff contends the letter supports his eighth cause of action for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and ninth cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal FDCPA. Both causes of action have a statute of limitations of one year. (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d); Civ. Code, § 1788.30(f).) Plaintiff filed this action on September 6, 2018, more than one year after the pre-lien notice was allegedly sent in 2016.

Foreclosing on a property pursuant to a deed of trust is not the collection of a debt within the meaning of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). (Rosal v. First Federal Bank of California (N.D.Cal.2009) 671 F.Supp.2d 1111.)

The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated section 1788.17 of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”) by violating 15 U.S.C. section 1692f, subdivision (1). (Compl., § III, ¶¶6, 11, 12.)

As a result, Brown is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorneys fees, under 15 USC § 1692k. 2nd c/a—Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Incorporates and reiterates prior allegations.

Footnote 1: The RFDCPA adopts the same definition of a “third-party debt collector” as the federal FDCPA. (See Civil Code, § 1812.700, subd. (a).) In addition, federal courts addressing personal jurisdiction in FDCPA cases apply state law to their analysis. (See Silva v. Jason Head, PLC (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2010, No. 09-CV-05768-LHK) 2010 WL 4593704, at *2.) FDCPA cases are thus relevant to the Court’s analysis here. (But see Sonora Diamond Corp. v.

ANALYSIS: On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff Rubith Mendoza-Ramos (Plaintiff) filed this action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) against Defendant Capital Management Services, LP (Defendant). Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on December 20, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 10, 2025, and Defendant replied on February 18, 2025.

Section 1788.17 of RFDCPA provides that a debt collector collecting or attempting to collect on a consumer debt must comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), specifically 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692b through 1692j. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated both RFDCPA and FDCPA, but there are no factual allegations in the complaint that National City Bank sought to collect a debt from plaintiff.

Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( RFDCPA) Section 1788.17 of the RFDCPA mandates that every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(b)-(j) and shall be subject to the remedies dictated by 15 U.S.C. §1692k and §1692d(5). In turn, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is codified in 15 U.S.C. §1692.

A claim under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code §1788, may only be brought against "debt collectors" and involving a "debt" as defined by that statute. Persuasive decisions by California U.S. District Courts have held that "(f)oreclosure does not constitute debt collection under the RFDCPA." (See e.g. Izenberg v. ETS Services LLC 589 F.Supp.2d 1193, 1199 (C.D. Cal., 2008) and Civil Code §2424(b).)

First Cause of Action (RFDCPA): Overruled. Ocwen asserts these alleged facts fail to state a cause of action under the RFDCPA. Specifically, Ocwen argues that the letter "was not a 'debt collection' attempt covered by the terms of the [RFDCPA]." (Demurrer, 6/25/12, p. 1.) "The term 'debt collection' means any act or practice in connection with the collection of consumer debts." (Civ. Code § 1788.2(b).)

Defendants’ primary argument on reply, then, is that Plaintiff has failed to allege an egregious violation of the RFDCPA.

Background Plaintiffs allege Defendant is a law firm and attorney who qualifies as a debt collector under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code §1788, et seq. (RFDCPA), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. (FDCPA), on behalf of itself as well as on behalf of third party original creditors, under RFDPCA §1788.2(c) and FDCPA §1692a(6). (Complaint ¶5.)

This conduct by Defendant violated section 1788.14, subdivision (c) and section 1788.17 of the RFDCPA. ( Id ., pp. 3-4 at ¶¶12-18.) By communicating with a debtor who is represented by an attorney, Defendant also violated section 1692c, subdivision (a)(2) of the FDCPA. (Id. at ¶27.) By communicating with a consumer who refuses to pay a debt or wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, Defendant violated section 1692c, subdivision (c) of the FDCPA. ( Id . at ¶28.)

Gonzalez filed the initial cross-complaint (“Cross-Complaint”) on June 10, 2019, alleging that CCS engaged in unlawful acts and abusive practices in connection with its attempt to collect the debt in violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”) and its state counterpart, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”). On January 13, 2020, CCS filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Cross-Complaint and the two claims asserted therein.

The causes of action are for (1) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA); (2) violation of Californias Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) violation of California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) Regulations; and (4) fraudulent debt collection practices (civil and criminal).

The first three are ground in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Defendant Liang demurs to the FDCPA claims (counts one through three) as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations under the FDCPA.

Demurer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to (1) negligence- to allege facts giving rise to duty of care; (2) violation of fair debt collection practices act- to allege facts showing that Defendants are "debt collectors" within the meaning of FDCPA; (3) slander of title- to allege "direct and immediate pecuniary loss;" (4) violation of 2344 - to allege all elements of this cause of action, statutory or common law; (5) declaratory relief- to allege non-duplicative actual controversy. = (501/REQ)

Whitehead III (Law Office) (collectively, Defendants), alleging two causes of action: (1) Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692, et seq. (FDCPA); and (2) Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code §§1788 et seq. (RFDCPA). On July 11, 2023, this Court granted Defendants special motion in the alternative to strike (Anti-SLAPP Motion) the 2nd cause of action in Plaintiffs Complaint. (7/11/23 Minute Order.)

Hill filed a second amended cross-complaint (“SAXC”) against VS, Michael Flanagan (“Flanagan”), and Debt Enforcement Law Group (“DELG”) on June 6, 2017 for: (1) Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and (2) California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”). On March 23, 2018, Hill voluntarily dismissed her cross-complaint with prejudice. B.

Defendant failed to adequately allege in the answer that defendant is a “debt collector” within the meaning of the Federal FDCPA and, in fact, has admitted sufficient facts in the answer to establish plaintiff is not a “debt collector”. Therefore, under the state of the pleadings before the court, defendant admits in her answer that the plaintiff can not be held liable for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The first three are ground in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Defendant Liang demurs to the FDCPA claims (counts one through three) as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations under the FDCPA.

Polakovic has pled sufficient facts to allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act. The allegations are not clearly barred by the statute of limitations on the face of the Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendant's other arguments involve questions of fact, that are not subject to demurrer. Cross-Defendant's request for judicial notice is denied. Cross-Defendant did not cite to any California legal authority in support of its request.

Polakovic has pled sufficient facts to allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act. The allegations are not clearly barred by the statute of limitations on the face of the Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendant's other arguments involve questions of fact, that are not subject to demurrer. Cross-Defendant's request for judicial notice is denied. Cross-Defendant did not cite to any California legal authority in support of its request.

Polakovic has pled sufficient facts to allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act. The allegations are not clearly barred by the statute of limitations on the face of the Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendant's other arguments involve questions of fact, that are not subject to demurrer. Cross-Defendant's request for judicial notice is denied. Cross-Defendant did not cite to any California legal authority in support of its request.

Whitton brings claims for (1) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (2) unfair business practices; and (3) declaratory relief against Cross-Defendants. Demurrer to Cross-Complaint Insofar as Whitton’s opposition does not address the second and third causes of action, the Court sustains the Demurrer to the those causes of action without leave to amend. The first cause of action for violation of the FDCPA is brought only against Flanagan. (Cross-Compl., p. 5:6-8.)

The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal FDCPA) (Civil Code §1788 et seq.) is the statutory equivalent of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The purpose it “to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring such debts.” (Civil Code §1788.1(b).)

The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal FDCPA) (Civil Code §1788 et seq.) is the statutory equivalent of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The purpose it “to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring such debts.” (Civil Code §1788.1(b).)

The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal FDCPA) (Civil Code §1788 et seq.) is the statutory equivalent of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The purpose it “to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring such debts.” (Civil Code §1788.1(b).)

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (2) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (3) conversion. Moving Defendant filed a demurrer to the first through third causes of action in the FAC[1]. JUDICIAL NOTICE The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice number 1 and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice number 2.

Ramirez now demurs to the complaint on the grounds that the three-day notice attached as an exhibit to the complaint was signed by an attorney and constitutes a violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). Because the three-day notice demands payment of back rent and violates the FDCPA, Ramirez argues that the notice is invalid. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the demurrer.

Civil Code section 1812.700, subdivision (a) provides that “third-party debt collectors subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” shall provide a notice summarizing debtors’ rights under the FDCPA and RFDCPA with the first written notice to the debtor.

Discussion Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Defendant contends that the complaint fails to state a violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Rosenthal Act). The Rosenthal Act is modeled on, and applies more broadly than, the federal FDCPA. ( Paredes v. Credit Consulting Services, Inc. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 410, 425.)

Nevertheless, given the various defects identified above, and because this is the second demurrer and Plaintiff has failed to show that the pleading can be reasonably amended, the demurrer to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is sustained without leave to amend. B. Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act The Rosenthal Act is modeled on the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.).

Plaintiff contends the letter supports his eighth cause of action for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and ninth cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal FDCPA. Both causes of action have a statute of limitations of one year. (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d); Civ. Code, § 1788.30(f).) Plaintiff filed this action on September 6, 2018, more than one year after the pre-lien notice was allegedly sent in 2016.

Sambrano's cross-complaint alleges the allegations in the complaint and attached exhibit violate provisions of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 USC 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), Civil Code section 1788 et seq., that prohibit misrepresentations and misleading statements regarding the amount and nature of the debt to the consumer.

Defendant Sambrano filed a cross-complaint alleging that the allegations in CCS's complaint and attached exhibit violate provisions of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 USC 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), Civil Code section 1788 et seq., that prohibit misrepresentations and misleading statements regarding the amount and nature of the debt to the consumer.

Defendant argues Plaintiff fails to specify if his unfair debt collection acts cause of action is under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. or the California equivalent, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”), Civil Code § 1788 et seq., as well as the statute or section Defendant allegedly violated.

Second Cause of Action for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Seventh Cause of Action for Quiet Title, and Eighth Cause of Action for Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Plaintiffs Christopher and Marissa Dhillon concede that the second cause of action under the FDCPA, the seventh cause of action for quiet title, and the eighth cause of action under RESPA should be “dismissed” as to Defendant

Nevertheless, given the various defects identified above, and because this is the second demurrer and Plaintiff has failed to show that the pleading can be reasonably amended, the demurrer to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is sustained without leave to amend. B. Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act The Rosenthal Act is modeled on the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.).

Generally, violations of the FDCPA also constitute violations of the RFDCPA. (See Hartung v. J.D. Byrider, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2009) 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54415 at p. *31— California Civil Code section 1788.17 states that every violation of the FDCPA is ipso facto violation of the Rosenthal Act.) This is because the provisions of the FDCPA are incorporated into the RDCPA under Civil Code section 1788.17. Here, Gonzalez maintains that CCS violated the FDCPA and therefore also violated the RDCPA.

ANALYSIS: Plaintiff in propria persona, Kimberly Yvette Hampton (Plaintiff), brought this action for violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), Californias Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and regulations set forth by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) against Defendants Francos Towing Service and Five Star Registration (Defendant) on Janaury 21, 2025.

On August 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint for Violation of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, Wrongful Foreclosure, Negligence, Slander of Title, Fraud, Accounting Validation of Alleged Debt, Unfair Competition in Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), RESPA Violations, Cancellation of Instrument Due to Fraud in Factum, Constructive Fraud, Injunctive Relief, Cancellation of Instrument Void, and Quiet Title

Tentative Ruling Re: Demurrer of Defendants GMAC Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank National Trust to the Faerman Plaintiffs' Complaint 1.Sustain, without leave to amend, as to the 1st cause of action for violation of the CA Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"). The collection of a home mortgage debt does not fall under the RFDCPA. California courts have declined to regard a residential mortgage loan as a 'debt' under the RFDCPA.

Allegations in the First Amended Complaint The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Damages for Harassment in Violation of FDCPA US Code § 806; 2. Damages for Misleading Representation In Violation Of FDCPA US Code § 807; 3. Damages for Unfair Practices in Violation of FDCPA US Code § 808; 4. Damages for Violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The causes of action are based on the following allegations.

The definition of "debt collector" is broader under the Rosenthal Act than it is under the FDCPA, as the latter excludes creditors collecting on their own debts. See Herrera v. LCS Fin. Servs. Corp., No. C09-2843, 2009 WL 5062192, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2009); Izenberg v. ETS Servs., LLC, 589 F.Supp.2d 1193, 1199 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ("The definition of 'debt collector' in the state statute is broader than that contained in the FDCPA, however").

Plaintiff sued defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). (15 U.S.C.A. § 1692 et seq.) The elements for a FDCPA action are: “(1) the plaintiff is a consumer, as defined by the FDCPA; (2) the debt arises out of a transaction primarily for personal, family or household purposes; (3) the defendant is a debt collector, as that phrase is defined by the FDCPA; and (4) the defendant violated a provision of the Act. (15 U.S.C. § 1692e; Heintz v.

Plaintiff sued defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). (15 U.S.C.A. § 1692 et seq.) The elements for a FDCPA action are: “(1) the plaintiff is a consumer, as defined by the FDCPA; (2) the debt arises out of a transaction primarily for personal, family or household purposes; (3) the defendant is a debt collector, as that phrase is defined by the FDCPA; and (4) the defendant violated a provision of the Act. (15 U.S.C. § 1692e; Heintz v.

Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.33 (“RFDCPA”).

It includes, among other things, a general denial of the allegations in the complaint, more than three pages of affirmative defenses, legal argument about the requirements under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereafter FDCPA), and excerpts from one or more publications and arguments about the creation of money and the banking system. On August 22, 2018, more than three months after filing her Answer, Defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss Complaint.”

It includes, among other things, a general denial of the allegations in the complaint, more than three pages of affirmative defenses, legal argument about the requirements under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereafter FDCPA), and excerpts from one or more publications and arguments about the creation of money and the banking system. On August 22, 2018, more than three months after filing her Answer, Defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss Complaint.”

Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Defendants’ general demurrer on the grounds that the 3-day notice violates the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is overruled, for the same reasons above, on the grounds of defective notice.

If Plaintiff prevails on her forgery claim, other causes of action could provide appropriate relief, thus making declaratory relief unnecessary. 8th cause of action, for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act BONY and by loan servicer PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION (“PHH”) both demurred to the eighth cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”)

(“Defendant”) for alleged violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). The basis for the action is Defendant’s practice of sending written communication in an envelope with a window that provided access to Plaintiff’s personal information. The litigation was settled, and on October 12, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement.

On November 12, 2020, the Stephenses filed a Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages, and later a First Amended Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages (“FACC”), asserting causes of action for (1) violation of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code §§ 1788.50-1788.64 (“CFDBPA”), (2) the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692- 1692p (“FDCPA”) and (3) the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code § 1788- 1788.33 (“RFDCPA”

.; Bank Of America Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 to 50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract third party beneficiary; (2) breach of implied covenant; (3) violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); (4) violation of California Civil Code § 2924.17; (5) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act; (6) unfair business practices violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (7) quiet title; and (8) fraud.

The First Cause of Action for Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). The purpose of the RFDCPA is "to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring such debts." (Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.1(b).)

On September 16, 2019, Defendant filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”) against American Express Bank, FSB (“AmEx FSB”) for: (1) violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (2) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”); (3) breach of written contract; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) unfair business practices.

Litigation Privilege Defendants contend all causes of action except the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) cause of action are barred by the litigation privilege. Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 sets forth a four-part test for determining whether a publication or communication is privileged.