In Day v. American Home Servicing, Inc. 2010 WL 2231988 (E.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Burrell held that a consumer stated a Rosenthal Act claim under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard for communicating with a represented party notwithstanding the fact that notice was not given in writing.  Judge Burrell explained:


Since the Rosenthal Act incorporates violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection and Practices Act, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant contacted Plaintiff when Plaintiff was represented by an attorney survives Defendant’s dismissal motion. Although section 1788.14(c) of the Rosenthal Act prohibits a debt collector from communicating with a represented debtor only after the debt collector has been “notified in writing by the debtor’s attorney that the debtor is represented,” the relevant incorporated section of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act is not as narrow. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c (a)(2). Section 1692c (a)(2) prohibits a debt collector from contacting a debtor whenever the debt collector “knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt …” Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a Rosenthal Act claim predicated upon communication with a represented debtor.