In Great Seneca Financial v. Holtzclaw, (L.A.Super. No. LC075416), Superior Court Judge Lichtman granted Summary Adjudication to Great Seneca Financial against the debtor’s FDCPA claim.  The debtor argued that Great Seneca had not qualified to do business in California at the time Great Seneca filed a collection action against the debtor.  Judge Lichtman rejected that argument as factual basis for an FDCPA claim:

Section 2203(c) prohibits a foreign corporation not in compliance with section 2105(a) from maintaining any action in the state.  Corporations Code section 191 defines the term “transact intrastate business”.  Subdivision (c) of that statute states:  Without excluding other activities that may not constitute transacting intrastate business, a foreign corporation shall not be considered to be transacting intrastate business within the meaning of subdivision (a) solely by reason of carrying on in this state any one or more of the following activities:  (1) maintaining or defending any action or suit or any administrative or arbitration proceeding, or effecting the settlement thereof or the settlement of claims or disputes.  Accordingly, the Corporations Code expressly excludes filing lawsuits as intrastate business and, as such, GS was not required to register with the State of California.

Ultimately, Judge Lichtman also said that even if the Corporations Code required registration to do business in the state, Great Seneca had cured by doing so during the course of the litigation. seneca-v-hotzclaw-cal-super-no-lc075416-msj-order-lasuper-2008