In Durham v. Continental Cent. Credit, 2010 WL 2776088 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Moskowitz disallowed injunctive relief under the FDCPA, explaining:


However, declaratory and injunctive relief are not available to private litigants suing under the FDCPA. The courts that have specifically addressed the issue of whether such relief is available to private plaintiffs in FDCPA actions uniformly hold that the FDCPA does not authorizesuch relief. Bolin v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 231 F.3d 970, 977 n. 39 (5th Cir.2000).     As explained by the Third Circuit in Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 341 (3d Cir.2004), although the FDCPA provides for injunctive or declaratory relief when the Federal Trade Commission brings an administrative enforcement action, 15 U.S.C. § 1692l, the FDCPA contains no express provision for declaratory or injunctive relief in private actions, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. The different penalty structure demonstrates Congress’s intent to preclude such relief in private actions. Id. at 342. See also Crawford v. Equifax Payment Servs., Inc., 201 F.3d 877, 882 (7th Cir.2000) (noting that all private actions under the FDCPA are for damages); Sibley v. Fulton DeKalb Collection Service, 677 F.2d 830, 834 (11th Cir.1982) (“Indeed, equitable relief is not available to an individual under the civil liability section of the Act.”).     Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on this issue, the Court agrees with the courts that have ruled that private litigants cannot obtain declaratory or injunctive relief under the FDCPA. Therefore, certification is not appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2). See Palmer v. Stassinos, 233 F.R.D. 546 (N.D.Cal.2006) (holding that equitable relief is not available to private plaintiffs under the FDCPA and that certification under 23(b)(2) was therefore not appropriate under either Rule 23(b)(2) alone or in conjunction with Rule 23(b)(3)).