In Crider v. Pacific Acquisitions & Associates, LLC, 2015 WL 6689391, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Magistrate Judge Cousins denied a Rosenthal Act plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment on the basis that non-debtors are not protected by the Act.

The Criders allege that Pacific violated the RFDCPA by threatening to call Ronnique’s supervisor. Cal. Civ. Code. § 1788.17. To qualify for protection under the RFDCPA, plaintiffs must be “debtors” as the term is defined in California Civil Code § 1788.2(h) (“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”). Additionally, defendants must be “debt collectors,” defined as “any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself or herself or other engages in debt collection.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c). Here, the Criders allege in the complaint that they are debtors, and that Pacific is a debt collector. However, in the supplemental briefing, only Ronnique Crider qualifies as a debtor. Ronnique states that the debt Pacific is seeking to collect is on her credit card, that she exclusively uses. Therefore, Raymond is not a debtor.  The RFDCPA prohibits a debt collector from threatening to take any illegal action in connection with collecting a debt. Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.10(f). The Criders allege that Pacific threatened to take illegal action, namely communicating with Ronnique’s employer regarding an outstanding debt, a violation of the RFDCPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.12(a). The Court finds that Ronnique Crider has alleged a sufficient claim under the RFDCPA, but Raymond Crider has not.