In Inzerillo v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2014 WL 6660534 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge James found that a debtor’s parents (i.e. third parties) who were repeatedly called in connection with the daughter’s debts were afforded no relief (i.e. lacked standing) under the Rosenthal Act.
In their Second Cause of Action, Plaintiffs allege that the “acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous and multiple violations of the Rosenthal Act, including but not limited to California Civil Code § 1788.14(b) & 1788.17 by violating [the FDCPA, §§] 1692b(2)(3), 1692d, 1692e, e(2), and 1692f, f(1).” Compl. ¶ 27. Defendant argues that it is not subject to liability under the Act for two reasons. First, it contends that the Rosenthal Act does not apply to Francesca because she was not a California resident when the alleged collection activities occurred. Mot. at 9. However, in their Reply, Defendant withdraws its motion on this ground. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED as to Francesca’s Rosenthal Act claim. ¶ As to Erasimo and Angela, Defendant contends that they lack standing to sue under the Act because they are not “debtors” subject to the Act’s protection. Id. In response, Plaintiffs argue that certain provisions of the Rosenthal Act protect non-debtors. Opp’n at 12–13. Specifically, Plaintiffs note that section 1788.17 requires debt collectors to comply with provisions of the FDCPA that prohibit a debt collector from engaging in certain conduct with any person, not just debtors. Id. ¶ The purpose of the Rosenthal Act is “to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring such debts.” Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.1(b). To establish a claim under the Rosenthal Act, a plaintiff “must establish that (1) he is a ‘debtor’ under section 1788.2(h), (2) the debt at issue is a ‘consumer debt’ under section 1788.2(f), (3) the defendant is a ‘debt collector’ under section 1788.2(c), and (4) that the defendant violated one of the liability provisions of the [Rosenthal Act].” Ansari v. Elec. Doc. Processing Inc., 2013 WL 4647621, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 29, 2013). ¶ The Rosenthal Act defines a debtor as “a natural person from whom a debt collector seeks to collect a consumer debt which is due and owing or alleged to be due and owing from such person.” Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.2(h). Thus, Erasimo and Angela lack standing to bring a cause of action under the Rosenthal Act because they are not debtors and are not alleged to have a consumer debt due and owing. See Sanchez v. Client Servs., Inc., 520 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1155 n.3 (N.D.Cal.2007) (finding that the plaintiff did not meet the definition of a debtor where it was undisputed that she did not owe the debt at issue or was otherwise obligated to pay the debt); People v. Persolve, LLC, 218 Cal.App. 4th 1267, 1272 n.1 (2013) (“Only the person who owes the debt or is otherwise obligated to pay the debt has standing to assert violations under the [Rosenthal] Act.”). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to Erasimo and Angela’s second cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Act.