In Hepler v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 2009 WL 1045470 (C.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Snyder held that a mortgage company foreclosing on a home was not subject to either the FDCPA nor the Rosenthal Act, explaining:


To be held liable for violation of the FDCPA, a defendant must-as a threshold requirement-fall within the FDCPA’s definition of “debt collector.” See Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 294, 115 S.Ct. 1489, 131 L.Ed.2d 395 (1995); see also, e.g., Romine v. Diversified Collection Servs., 155 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.1998). Like the FDCPA, the RFDCPA applies only to debt collectors. Izenberg v. ETS Services, LLC 589 F.Supp.2d 1193, 1199 (C.D.Cal.2008). The definition of “debt collector” found in the state statute is broader than that contained in the FDCPA. Id. However, “foreclosure does not constitute debt collection under the RFDCPA.” Id.     The Court concludes that Greenpoint is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims for violation of the FDCPA and the RFDCPA. “[T]he law is well-settled … that creditors, mortgagors, and mortgage servicing companies are not debt collectors and are statutorily exempt from liability under the FDCPA .” Scott v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 326 F.Supp.2d 709, 718 (2003) (emphasis in original). Greenpoint is not a debt collector pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a or Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.2 and therefore Greenpoint is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s FDCPA and RFDCPA claims. Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).


Accord, Figueroa v. Citibank, N.A. 2009 WL 1024678 (S.D.Cal. April 15, 2009).