In Osei v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 2010 WL 727831 (E.D. Cal. 2010), Judge Karlton discussed the pleading standards for a Rosenthal Act claim.  However, Judge Karlton did not discuss the heightened pleading standard for FDCPA claims as some other district courts have under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twonbly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and Ascroft v. Iqbal 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 


The court will separately address the remaining allegations because each presents a separate theory of liability. Plaintiff’s second allegation is that CHL threatened to make false reports to credit agencies.  FAC  68. The RosenthalAct does not explicitly proscribe such behavior, but does, however, explicitly incorporate federal law, Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.17, and the federal Fair Debt Collection and Practices Act prohibits “communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false” 15 U.S.C § 1692e(8). Plaintiff’s allegation satisfies the requirement of Rule 8 by identifying the circum-stances and events of the challenged conduct. More-over, the allegation need not meet Rule 9(b)’s height-ened pleading standard. 9(b) does not apply because this theory does not “sound[ ] in fraud.” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125-26 (9th Cir.2009). Plaintiff alleges that false representation was threatened, not necessarily made and relied upon, hence fraud is not the “basis of [the] claim,” and Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) does not apply. Vess, 317 F.3d at 1103-04.    . . . Finally, CHL allegedly “threatened” to falsely state the amount of Plaintiff’s debt. FAC  68. Apart from threats made to credit agencies, discussed above, plaintiff apparently means that CHL falsely stated the debt to him. This allegation concerns particular false representations, thus sounds in fraud and is subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened requirements. Although Plain-tiff has alleged the content of the false representation and the identity of the parties (CHL), he has not alleged the time, place or manner of the misrepresentation with sufficient particularity. Accordingly plaintiff has not met the pleading requirements for his claim that CHL falsely stated the amount of debt.