In Janti v. Encore Capital Group, Inc. 2010 WL 3058260 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Sammartino held that the Plaintiff stated a class action claim against a debt collector for allegedly collecting out-of-statute debt.  Judge Sammartino held that the Plaintiff had properly pleaded claims under the FDCPA and UCL, but not the FCRA, explaining that the least sophisticated consumer could have believed that the collection letters implied legal action when none could be taken.  Judge Sammartino found that the Plaintiffs had stated no FCRA claim claim because they did not proceed first through the CRAs, as FCRA and the 9th Circuit’s Nelson decision require, and that FCRA pre-empted Plaintiff’s UCL claim under Howard v. Blue Ridge Bank. Judge Sammartino held, however, that Plaintiff could state a UCL claim piggy-backed on the FDCPA violation and that the Plaintiff’s payment of a filing fee to defend a collection action as well as having received a deceptive letter provided the injury-in-fact required for standing.  Finally, Judge Sammartino held that the Plaintiff did not have to prove standing for all potential classmembers, but only for the named plaintiff.