In Angel v. American Recovery Services Inc., 2012 WL 3594371 (W.D.Wash.), Judge Coughenour followed the 9th Circuit’s rule in Guerrero that the FDCPA does not apply to communications with debtor’s counsel.

ARSI contends that any relief for Plaintiff on the facts alleged is foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions, 499 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2007). In Guerrero, RJM, a debt collector, sent letters to the plaintiff regarding an outstanding debt, and the plaintiff referred the matter to his attorney, who communicated with RJM on the plaintiff’s behalf. RJM ceased communication with the plaintiff and sent a letter to the attorney stating, inter alia, that it was not a debt collection agency and was not subject to the FDCPA. Id. at 929. The plaintiff sued RJM, alleging that the letters to himself and his attorney violated the FDCPA. The district court granted the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that “communications di-rected solely to a debtor’s attorney are not actionable under the Act.” Id. at 934. The court reasoned that Congress intended to treat lawyers and their debtor clients differently under the FDCPA, and that “it appears that Congress viewed attorneys as intermediaries able to bear the brunt of overreaching debt collection practices from which debtors and their loved ones should be protected.” Id. at 935. Thus, in the Ninth Circuit, if an alleged misrepresentation is made to the plaintiff’s attorney with no contact to the debtor, the FDCPA has not been violated. Id. at 937.  ¶  The Court agrees with ARSI that Guerrero governs here. The only communication that Ms. Angel alleges constituted a violation of the FDCPA was a communication to her attorney. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4.) The Complaint contains no allegation that ARSI threatened or attempted to contact Ms. Angel directly. In light of Guerrero, her claim is not actionable.