In Katzakian v. Collectibles Management Resources, 2013 WL 57712 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge O’Neill found that an FDCPA Plaintiff failed to state a claim for harassment under 1692d for continuing to collect after a dispute when the debt collector complied with post-dispute debt validation under 1692g.

CMR summarizes that section 1692g(b) authorizes continued debt collection unless a consumer disputes in writing during the 30–day period. CMR notes the FAC’s absence of facts that Ms. Katzakian disputed the debt in writing or within specified time in that the FAC attributes to her only an oral telephone communication to dispute the debt and does not indicate the date of the oral telephone communication.  CMR continues that section 1692d(1)-(6) list prohibited collection conduct, none of which prohibit or address “the practice of continuing collection efforts after a debtor has disputed the debt” because section 1692g(b), not section 1692d, addresses “conduct after receiving a dispute notification.” CMR argues that since section 1962g(b) regulates debt collection after a debt dispute, section 1692g(b) “permits the conduct that is alleged in the FAC, namely that CMR continued collection efforts.” CMR concludes that acts in compliance with one FDCPA section “are presumptively not in violation of other sections.” See Renick v. Dun & Bradstreet Receivable Management Services, 290 F.3d 1055, 1057–1058 (9th Cir.2002).  Ms. Katzakian offers no meaningful opposition to CMR’s points regarding section 1962g continuing debt collection. Ms. Katzakian merely recites FAC allegations and fails to demonstrate how they support section 1692d violations or that CMR violated section 1962g. The FAC merely alleges Ms. Katzakian’s telephone dispute of the debt with no reference to a written response. The FAC lacks a viable section 1962d claim.