In Lopez v. Professional Collection Consultants, 2012 WL 777497 (C.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Gutierrez found that the Plaintiff stated a claim for harassment under the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant began placing collection calls to Plaintiff in January 2010 for a debt that Defendant claimed was owed to AT & T. SAC ¶ 11. FN1 Defendant informed Plaintiff that he had co-signed an AT & T contract with Maria Elena Lopez and that a debt was owed under the contract. SAC ¶ 12. Defendant made “up to three (3) collection calls, five (5) times per week” through March 2011. SAC ¶¶ 11, 12. In February 2010, Plaintiff told Defendant that they were calling the wrong person, Plaintiff did not owe any debt to AT & T, and to stop contacting him because the constant phone calls were annoying, abusing and harassing. SAC ¶ 13. Plaintiff also told Defendant that he did not know a Maria Elena Lopez and had never cosigned an AT & T contract with a Maria Elena Lopez. SAC ¶ 16. Despite Plaintiff’s statements, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff multiple times per day seeking payment. SAC ¶ 17. Defendant has told Plaintiff that he is a liar and accuses Plaintiff of “co-signing an AT & T contract for a family member or a lover.” SAC ¶ 18.
The District Court found that these allegations stated a harassment claim:
The Court finds Plaintiff has cured the defects of the First Amended Complaint. In dismissing the First Amended Complaint, the Court held there were no facts to demonstrate Defendant’s calls were harassing, because Plaintiff had not given any factual particularity regarding the dates and contents of the alleged communications. October 19 Order at 3. The SAC now specifically alleges calls were received on February 21, 22, and 24, 2011. SAC ¶¶ 21–23. The SAC also pleads that these calls were received after Plaintiff informed Defendant they were calling the wrong person, he did not owe any debt to AT & T, to stop contacting him because the constant phone calls were annoying, abusing and harassing, that he did not know a Maria Elena Lopez, and he had never co-signed an AT & T contract with a Maria Elena Lopez. SAC ¶¶ 13, 16. Moreover, the SAC alleges Defendant told Plaintiff that he is a liar and accused Plaintiff of “co-signing an AT & T contract for a family member or a lover.” SAC ¶ 18. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for relief under the sections of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act Plaintiff has sued under.