In Marlin v. Chase Cardmember Services, Inc. 2009 WL 2043014 (E.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Ishii held that a credit card company collecting its own obligation was not subject to the FDCPA.  Moreover, Judge Ishii denied leave to amend notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s suspicion that the creditor employed an outside agency to collect in its name. 


The Court does not believe that leave to amend is appropriate. Even if Marlin’s suspicions are correct and the callers were not Chase employees but were “employees of some third-party collection company, that would not change the fact that neither [Chase] nor its employees are ‘debt collectors’ under the FDCPA.” MacDermid, 488 F.3d at 735. Federal courts have held that creditors who are not them-selves “debt collectors” may not be vicariously liable under the FDCPA for the actions of the “debt collectors” whom they hire. See Pollice, 225 F.3d at 404; Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 76 F.3d 103, 108 (6th Cir.1996); Fouche v. Shapiro & Massey L.L.P., 575 F.Supp.2d 776, 783 (S.D.Miss.2008); Oei v. N Star Capital Acquisitions, LLC, 486 F.Supp.2d 1089, 1095-96 (C.D.Cal.2006); Doherty v. Citibank (S.D. N.A., 375 F.Supp.2d 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y.2005); Conner v. Howe, 344 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1170 (S.D.Ind.2004); Caron v. Charles E. Maxwell, P.C., 48 F.Supp.2d 932, 936 (D.Ariz.1999). Additionally, neither the opposition nor the complaint indicate that the callers identified themselves as being employed by an entity other than Chase, and neither the opposition nor the complaint indicate that Chase used a name other than its own in trying to collect its debt. See15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6); Maguire, 147 F.3d at 235; Pippert, 518 F.Supp.2d at 1270. In light of these considerations, the Court will grant judgment in favor of Chase.