In Membrila v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC 2010 WL 1407274 (S.D.Cal.), Judge Gonzalez found that a consumer properly pleaded a claim against a debt collector for the manner of recording the collection calls, explaining:


California Penal Code § 632, on the other hand, does apply to recording by a participant to a conversation. Section 632 provides a civil remedy against any person who “intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eaves-drops upon or records the confidential communication.” Cal.Penal Code §§ 632(a), 637.2. “This language has uniformly been construed to prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording that communication without knowledge or consent of the other party.” Warden v. Kahn, 99 Cal.App.3d 805, 813, 160 Cal.Rptr. 471 (Ct.App.1979).    Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for violation of Section 632 because Plaintiff admits he had knowledge that the recording was taking place. However, it is a violation of this section to “record[ ] the conversation without first informing all parties to the conversation that the con-versation is being recorded.” Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95, 118, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 730, 137 P.3d 914 (2006). “A business that adequately advises all parties to a telephone call, at the outset of the conversation, of its intent to record the call would not violate the provision.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, Defendant allegedly did not inform Plaintiff at the outset of the call that the conversation was being recorded. Plaintiff alleges: “only after discussing Plaintiff’s debt and Plaintiff’s salary with the plaintiff, Jason Edwards, on behalf of Defendant, told Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. Plaintiff was not given notice that the call was being recorded at the outset of the call ….“ (FAC  39.) ¶  Accordingly, Plaintiff has stated a cause of action for violation of Section 632.