In Coats v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, 2014 WL 545432 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Magistrate Brennan dismissed an FDCPA Plaintiff’s claim that the debt collector failed to properly validate the debt, finding that the information that the debt collector provided to the debtor was sufficient under the FDCPA.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to cease collection efforts upon plaintiff disputing the alleged debt in violation of section 1692g(b). ECF No. 17 at 4–6. Section 1692g requires a debt collector to provide a consumer debtor with certain information. This includes a statement that if the debtor disputes the debt in writing within 30–days, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4). If the consumer properly disputes the debt, all collection activity shall cease until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). “[V]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed.” Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., 460 F.3d 1162, 1173–74 (9th Cir.2006). . .The February 3, 2012 letter acknowledges that plaintiff disputes the debt and states that the required verification information is enclosed with the letter. Id. at 1. The documents included with the letter identify the original creditor as Bank of America, N.A., and the current owner of the debt as defendant Cach. Id. at 2. It also identifies the original and current account numbers and provides the account balance on the placement date ($4,857.71). Id. Also included with the letter is a Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loan, reflecting that the loan was purchased by Cach. Also appended to the letter are credit card statements from the original creditor, reflect the amount plaintiff allegedly owes. Furthermore, defendants included a certificate of assignment signed by an authorized agent for Cach which certified that the information provided was accurate.  ¶  Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, this response was more than adequate to satisfy the verification requirements. See  Rodriguez v. Discovery Bank, No. 11 cv2155 BTM (NLS), 2012 WL 1520073, *3 (S .D. Cal. April 30, 2012) (finding that providing a copy of the cardmember agreement and copies of monthly statements were sufficient to satisfy the verification requirement). Since defendants provided the requisite verification in their initial response to plaintiff’s letter disputing the debt, they were permitted to continue their collection efforts. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) (requiring all collection activity to cease until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt). Accordingly, plaintiff is unable to state a violation of section 1692g(b). Since is it clear that defendants provided the requested verification, and therefore plaintiff will not be able to allege a violation of 1692g(b), this claim is dismissed without leave to amend.