In Pollock v. Bay Area Credit Service, LLC, 2009 WL 2475167 (S.D.Fla.,2009), Judge Dimitrouleas refused to apply the Rosenthal Act extraterritorially, meaning to non-California debtors against whom debt collection was performed by a California LLC. Judge Dimitrouleas explained:
The Court would note that commentary on the Rosenthal Act’s protection discusses it in terms of debt collection within the state: “Notwithstanding the state provisions governing debt collection practices in California, in general every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt in the state is required by state law to also comply with the federal provisions, subject to specified, limited exceptions.” 13A Cal. Jur. 3d Consumer and Borrower Protection Laws § 532 (2009) (emphasis added). Furthermore, under the California Civil Code, a debt collector is required to provide a notice of the debtor’s rights. This provision reads as follows: “The notice shall be included with the first written notice initially addressed to a California address of a debtor in connection with collecting the debt by the third-party debt collector.” Cal. Civ.Code § 1812.700(b) (emphasis added). Given these examples and that the act is aimed at preventing abusive collection practices, the Court finds that the Act is meant to protect California consumers and not necessarily to prohibit violations by collection agencies with their headquarters located in the state but carrying out actions elsewhere. Plaintiff has not pointed to, and the Court has not located, any case standing for the proposition that the Rosenthal Act may apply to an out-of-state plaintiff/debtor against a California-based debt collector that pursued claims from locations outside of California. The Court declines to extend the protections of California law to a Florida resident who received calls that originated from Atlanta, Georgia. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied, Defendant’s Motion granted, and the Rosenthal Act claim shall be dismissed.