In Moriarity v. Henriques, 2011 WL 3568435 (E.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Thurston found that an in pro per debtor could state a claim against a law firm under the Rosenthal Act, but not against its individual attorneys, explaining:
Notably, the RFDCPA excludes attorneys from the definition of “debt collectors” while the FDCPA does not. Compare Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.2(c) ( “the term … does not include an attorney or counselor at law”) with 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). On the other hand, district courts throughout the Ninth Circuit have found that a law firm is a “debt collector” within the meaning of the RFDCPA: “The statute merely states that it does not apply to ‘attorney’ or ‘counselor at law;’ it does not outright exclude law firms. Since the legislature specifically excluded attorneys from the statute but was silent with respect to law firms, this Court presumes that the legislature did not intend to exclude law firms.” Abels, 227 F.R.D. at 547–48; see also Robinson, 654 F.Supp .2d at 1061; Miranda, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55180, at *19–20. Consequently, though Plaintiff is unable to assert RFDCPA claims against Janalie Henriques, she has stated a cognizable claim for a violation of RFDCPA against the law firm of Hunt & Henriques.