Skinner v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
Filing
37
ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Dismiss (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2012)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
JAMIE SKINNER,
Plaintiff,
8
9
v.
GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC,
10
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:12-cv-03834-JCS
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
[Dkt. No. 25].
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff alleges that various phone calls from Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection
14
15
Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
16
Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq., which prohibit debt collectors
17
from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices. Defendant brings a
18
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
19
of Civil Procedure (“the Motion”). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the
20
undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Motion came on for hearing
21
December 14, 2012, at 9:30a.m. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED in part
22
and DENIED in part.
23
II.
BACKGROUND
24
A.
Factual Allegations
25
Plaintiff Jamie Skinner is a resident of Contra Costa, California. First Amended
26
Compliant (“FAC”) ¶ 9. On November 2, 2005, Plaintiff executed a promissory note in the
27
amount of $408,000 in favor of CMG Mortgage Services, Inc. (“CMG”) secured by a Deed of
28
Trust to the property located at 3031 Mills Drive, Brentwood, California 94513. Defendant Green
1
Tree’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
2
(“RJN”) 1, Exh. A; see also FAC ¶ 17. That same day, Plaintiff executed a junior-priority
3
promissory note in the amount of $102,000, which was also in favor of CMG and also secured by
4
a Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents to the same property. RJN, Exh. B; see also FAC ¶ 17.
5
This second loan is the only loan relevant to this action and will hereafter be referred to as “the
6
loan.” On February 2, 2012, the property was sold through a nonjudicial foreclosure. RJN, Exh.
7
C; FAC ¶ 18.
8
9
After the foreclosure, Plaintiff received a letter informing her that Green Tree Servicing
LLC (“Green Tree”) acquired the rights to the loan. See FAC ¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges that she used
the loan to purchase the property which underwent foreclosure, and therefore, she is not
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
personally liable for the loan under California Code of Civil Procedure § 580b. FAC ¶¶ 17-18.
12
Section 580b provides that “[n]o deficiency judgment shall lie” against a purchase money loan
13
after foreclosure.2 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 580b.
14
On March 1, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from Green Tree informing Plaintiff that she
15
owed $102,000 immediately because the amount due on the loan accelerated after default. Id.
16
After receiving this letter, Plaintiff received a series of phone calls from Green Tree. The first
17
phone call was between Plaintiff and a woman from Green Tree named Corina. Id. ¶ 19. After
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
Defendants submitted the Request for Judicial Notice with the first motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s original complaint. See Dkt. No. 14. Under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, “a court may take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record.’” Lee v. City of Los
Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d
1279, 1282 (9th Cir.1986)). Because the documents submitted with Defendant’s Request for
Judicial Notice are publically-recorded Deeds of Trust and other publically-recorded documents,
the Court grants Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice. See id.
2
The text of section 580b states, in relevant part: “No deficiency judgment shall lie in
any event after a sale of real property or an estate for years therein for failure of the purchaser to
complete his or her contract of sale, or under a deed of trust or mortgage given to the vendor to
secure payment of the balance of the purchase price of that real property or estate for years
therein, or under a deed of trust or mortgage on a dwelling for not more than four families given
to a lender to secure repayment of a loan which was in fact used to pay all or part of the purchase
price of that dwelling occupied, entirely or in part, by the purchaser.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
580b.
28
2
1
Plaintiff informed Corina that the loan was a purchase money loan under which she was not
2
personally liable, “Corina agreed, but told Plaintiff it would still affect their credit unless Plaintiff
3
settled by paying an agreed amount.” Id. Plaintiff received three more phone calls the morning
4
of April 14, 2012. Id. Plaintiff did not answer the first call, the “phone hung up” on the second
5
call, and the third call was a recording from Green Tree telling Plaintiff to call back. Id.
6
On the morning of April 16, 2012, Plaintiff received another call from Green Tree.
7
Plaintiff interrupted the man to tell him that the loan was a purchase money loan and the house
8
had foreclosed. Id. Plaintiff “[t]old him not to call us anymore and that I had already stated that
9
we were talking with our lawyer.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that the man “became very abrupt and
said ‘Well thank you for commanding the conversation like that but we do not sit around and wait
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
for you to contact us.’” Id.
12
On the morning of April 18, 2012, Plaintiff received another phone call from man who
13
worked for Green Tree. Id. This man, presumably named Gary Rose, told Plaintiff she still owed
14
$102,000 and “proceeded to bully” her. Id. Plaintiff alleges the following in her First Amended
15
Compliant regarding the April 18th phone call:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[He said] I stole this money from Countrywide and now they have a blank spot in
their bank account while we are living free! He said how can you be an American
and know that you are stealing this money …
He proceeded to tell me “wouldn’t it be nice for everyone to just say they have a
lawyer and things will go away, but somebody, YOU still need to pay your debt!”
He then also told me, that I felt like I knew more than him and I was choosing the
wrong decision to go up against BofA and that they will do everything in their
power to come after us to get all their money back.
He said they will contact my husband’s employer to verify that he is still working
and look into me if I am working because they can garnish our wages to pay back
the debt.
(By this point my heart is pounding and I can feel my blood pressure going thru
[sic] the roof!) I felt many times that he attacked my character and ability to ‘do
the right thing’!
He then stated that I am denying the offer to settle at a lower amount and that at
this point BofA will do everything to get their money and after the phone hangs up
I will no longer have the offer to settle at a lower payoff.
Id. (paragraphs inserted for ease of reading).
3
1
Plaintiff alleges the foregoing acts “constitute numerous and multiple violations” of the
2
FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act. Plaintiff alleges the loan constitutes “debt” as defined under the
3
FDCPA. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff alleges that she is a “consumer” as defined by the FDCPA and a
4
“debtor,” as defined under the Rosenthal Act. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Plaintiff further alleges that Green
5
Tree is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act, see id. ¶¶ 12-13, which is
6
evidenced by Green Tree’s first letter to Plaintiff wherein Green Tree “admitted, in writing, that it
7
was a debt collector,” id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff asserts violations of the FDCPA, “including but not
8
limited to §§ 1692d, 1692d(2), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(7), 1692e(10), and 1692f[,]” id. ¶ 22, and
9
violations of the Rosenthal Act, “including 1788.11(a) and 1788.17,” id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff requests
10
actual damages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. ¶¶ 23, 26.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
B.
Motion to Dismiss
12
On October 26, 2012, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
13
Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 25 (Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint)
14
(“Motion”). Defendant first argues the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed because
15
Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant violated California’s anti-deficiency statute cannot, standing
16
alone, give rise to a claim for unfair debt collection practices. Defendant cites Herrera v. LCS
17
Fin. Servs. Corp., No. 09-2843, 2009 WL 2912517 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2009), where a court from
18
this district considered whether California Code of Civil Procedure § 580b obliterated the
19
existence of a debt, because if so, the debt collector would have been liable under FDCPA for
20
misrepresenting the debt’s existence when the debt collector contacted the plaintiff. The Herrera
21
court held:
22
23
24
25
Section 580b, by its own terms, eliminates a creditor’s ability to seek a deficiency
judgment, but it does not eliminate the underlying debt. The fact of that debt’s
existence may be entirely theoretical, given that section 580b closes the courthouse
door on any creditor’s collection efforts against the mortgagor. However, the
claim that section 580b erases the debt, barring [the debt collector] from seeking
payment in any manner, must fail as a matter of law.
26
See id. at *8. Defendant argues that under the reasoning of Herrera, Defendant was not barred
27
from contacting Plaintiff and encouraging her to pay her debt because the debt was still in
28
existence.
4
1
In Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff concedes that
2
Defendant was entitled to request payment on the debt despite the applicability of section 580b,
3
and contends that “Plaintiff did not sue because Defendant simply requested payment.” Dkt. No.
4
21 (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended
5
Complaint) (“Opp.”) at 3. Rather, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s manner in attempting to
6
collect the debt violates the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act. Id. at 3-4. Because the parties agree
7
that if section 580b applies to Plaintiff’s loan, Defendant would not be barred from merely
8
contacting Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the debt, this is no longer a disputed issue and will not
9
be addressed by the Court.
10
Defendant next argues the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed because the
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
alleged communications between Plaintiff and Green Tree are not the type of behavior prohibited
12
by the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act. Without specifically referencing Plaintiff’s allegations,
13
Defendant argues Green Tree enjoys a “qualified economic privilege” to protect its economic
14
interests. Motion at 5-7. Defendant cites two California state cases to argue that the “privilege
15
may be lost if the creditor uses outrageous and unreasonable means in seeking repayment,” see
16
Opp. at 6 (quoting Symonds v. Mercury Savings & Loan Ass’n, 225 Cal.App.3d 1458, 1468
17
(1990)), and that the “applicable test is whether or not the creditor goes beyond all reasonable
18
bounds of decency in attempting to collect the debt,” see Opp. at 6 (quoting Bundren v. Superior
19
Court, 145 Cal.App.3d 784, 789 (1983)). Plaintiff notes that neither case which Defendant cites
20
involve claims for violations of the FDCPA or the Rosenthal Act. Rather, the Symonds and
21
Bundren courts articulated legal principles in the context of claims for intentional infliction of
22
emotional distress. Opp. at 4-5. Further, Plaintiff argues that “there exists no privilege which
23
permits a debt collector to call borrowers un-American thieves.” Opp. at 4.
24
As a final point in Defendant’s Motion, Defendant argues the First Amended Complaint
25
“cannot withstand the pleading stage” because Plaintiff “has not adequately pled the elements
26
necessary to recover actual damages.” Motion at 7-8. Defendant contends that in order to
27
recover actual damages, a plaintiff must plead the elements of a claim for intentional infliction of
28
emotional distress. Id. (citing Costa v. Nat’l Action Fin. Servs., 634 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1078 (E.D.
5
1
Cal. 2007)). In response, Plaintiff contends she is not required to plead the elements of a claim
2
for intentional infliction of emotional distress when her claims are for violations of the FDCPA
3
and Rosenthal Act. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s argument against the computation of
4
actual damages is premature, and argues that “[e]ven if this Court were to find that Plaintiff is not
5
entitled to all of the relief requested, Defendant would still not be entitled to an order of dismissal
6
of this action.” Opp. at 8.
7
In the Reply, Defendant makes more specific arguments relating to Plaintiff’s claims in
8
the First Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 34 (Reply in Support of Defendant Green Tree’s Motion
9
to Dismiss First Amended Complaint) (“Reply”). Defendant argues Plaintiff states no claim for
relief under section 1692d, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging “in any conduct the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person,” see § 1692d, because
12
the First Amended Complaint “describes fairly typical debt collection conversations, with
13
gradually increasing levels of pressure as Skinner continued to refuse to pay her debt.” Reply at
14
4. Next, Defendant contends Plaintiff states no claim for relief under section 1692e, which
15
prohibits debt collectors from using any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means,”
16
see § 1692e, because Green Tree did not threaten to take illegal action or falsely represent the
17
legal status of the debt because Green Tree may in fact be able to recover the debt through
18
judicial action. Reply at 6-7. Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiff states no claim for relief under
19
section 1692f, which forbids “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any
20
debt,” see § 1692f, because Plaintiff fails to allege any facts which would give rise to a cause of
21
action under section 1692f.
22
III.
23
LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted
24
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “The
25
purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the
26
complaint.” N.Star. Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). In ruling on
27
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court takes “all allegations of material fact as true
28
6
1
and contrue(s) them in the lights most favorable to the non-moving party.” Parks Sch. of Bus. v.
2
Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1990).
3
Generally, the plaintiff’s burden at the pleading stage is relatively light. Rule 8(a) requires
4
a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
5
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must
6
allege facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
7
556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). The
8
factual allegations must be definite enough to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level on
9
the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545.
“[T]he tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
recitals of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Iqbal, 556
12
U.S. at 663.
13
IV.
DISCUSSION
14
The purpose of the FDCPA is to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt
15
collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection
16
practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect
17
consumers against debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). An aggrieved party may thus
18
recover actual damages, statutory damages, and seek an award of attorney’s fees and costs where
19
the provisions of the FDCPA have been violated. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a).
20
The Rosenthal Act is California’s counterpart to the FDCPA and incorporates its salient
21
provisions. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17. Plaintiff’s only separate claim under the Rosenthal
22
Act is that Defendant violated California Civil Code § 1788.11(a). This claim is the same as
23
Plaintiff’s section 1692d claim because they both prohibit use of “obscene and profane language.”
24
See 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2); Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.11(a). Therefore, the Court does not undergo a
25
separate analysis for the Rosenthal Act claim.
26
A.
27
Before considering the issue presently before the Court--whether Plaintiff has adequately
28
Defendant’s Arguments in the Opening Brief
stated a claim for relief under the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act--the Court addresses Defendant’s
7
1
meritless arguments from the Opening Brief. First, Defendant has provided no legal support for
2
the contention that Green Tree enjoys “qualified economic privilege.” Defendant cites two
3
California state cases which discuss qualified economic privilege in the context of claims for
4
intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), not FDCPA or Rosenthal Act claims. See
5
Bundren, 145 Cal.App.3d at 789; Symonds, 225 Cal.App.3d at 1468. The Bundren and Symonds
6
courts sought to balance a creditor’s right to demand payments with an individual’s right to be
7
free from intentional infliction of emotional distress. See id. However, in the context of the
8
FDCPA and Rosenthal Act, Congress and the California Legislature have already struck the
9
appropriate balance of these competing concerns by passing specific legislation which prohibits
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
specific conduct.
In Fox v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., 15 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir. 1994), the Ninth Circuit
12
reversed the district court’s conclusion that a plaintiff failed to establish a FDCPA claim by
13
failing to demonstrate that the defendant’s actions were “unreasonable.” Id. at 1516. The Ninth
14
Circuit noted that the “reasonableness” of the defendant’s actions was an “incorrect standard”
15
because “[t]he FDCPA is not simply a federal codification of common-law negligence.” Id.
16
(“Rather, each section specifies what kind of conduct supports FDCPA liability”). Here,
17
Defendant is attempting to promote a similar “incorrect standard” by analogizing Plaintiff’s
18
FDCPA and Rosenthal Act claims to IIED claims. Contrary to Defendant’s contention, however,
19
the “applicable test” for claims arising under the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act is not “whether or not
20
the creditor goes beyond all reasonable bounds of decency in attempting to collect the debt.”
21
Opp. at 6 (citing Bundren, 145 Cal.App.3d at 789). That is the test for an IIED claim, see
22
Bundren, 145 Cal.App.3d at 789, and will not be entertained here.
23
Defendant’s next argument is similarly unavailing. Defendant contends the First
24
Amended Complaint “cannot withstand the pleading stage” because Plaintiff has not adequately
25
pled the elements of an IIED claim. Opp. at 8. Defendant cites cases in which some courts
26
required the plaintiff to satisfy the elements of an IIED claim in order to recover “actual
27
28
8
1
damages” for emotional distress under the FDCPA and/or Rosenthal Act.3 See, e.g., Costa v.
2
Nat’l Action Fin. Servs., 634 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1078 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (“Costa”). However,
3
Defendant’s sweeping argument fails for two reasons. First, Defendant cites no case in which a
4
plaintiff was required to plead the IIED elements in order to survive dismissal. Rather, this
5
principle is only applied when the plaintiff must actually prove her damages. See, e.g., Costa,
6
634 F.Supp.2d at 1007 (decided at the summary judgment stage); Venes v. Prof'l Serv. Bureau,
7
Inc., 353 N.W.2d 671, 674 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (IIED elements written into the jury
8
instructions). Second, recovery of “actual damages” under the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act is not
9
limited to damages for emotional distress. A plaintiff, for example, may recover “actual
damages” when a debt collector causes the termination of a plaintiff’s employment, and clearly
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
such a plaintiff would not be required to plead the elements of an IIED claim.
12
13
14
As discussed above, Defendant made specific arguments relating to Plaintiff’s claims in
the Reply, which will now be considered in the context of Plaintiff’s specific claims.
B.
15
16
Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief
1.
Section 1692d
Section 1692d proscribes debt collectors from engaging “in conduct the natural
17
consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. Section
18
1692d contains a nonexhaustive list of specific conduct which constitutes a violation of the
19
section, such as the “use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical
20
person, reputation, or property,” § 1692d(1), the “use of obscene or profane language or language
21
the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader,” § 1692d(2), or “[c]ausing a
22
telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously
23
with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person,” § 1692d(5).
24
25
The Eleventh Circuit has stated that “claims under § 1692d should be viewed from the
perspective of a consumer whose circumstances makes him relatively more susceptible to
26
3
27
28
Other courts have not demanded such a high standard. See Costa, 634 F.Supp.2d at 1078
(“District courts are split over whether a plaintiff’s claims for emotional distress damages under
the FDCPA are evaluated under the state law governing the tort of IIED or some lower
standard.”).
9
1
harassment, oppression, or abuse.” Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168, 1179 (11th Cir.
2
1985); see also Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 2010) (the Ninth
3
Circuit has stated that ‘the lease sophisticated debtor’ standard applies section 1692d). The
4
Eleventh Circuit analogized this principle to the “least sophisticated consumer” standard courts
5
apply to sections 1692e and 1692f, but noted how the concept is more nuanced in section 1962d
6
because even the most sophisticated consumer will be more susceptible to harassment or abuse if
7
he or she “is poor (i.e., has limited access to the legal system), is on probation, or is otherwise at
8
the mercy of a power relationship.” Id.
9
There is no bright-line rule establishing which conduct constitutes harassment or abuse
under section 1692d, but it is clear that some “conduct fails to establish harassment as a matter of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
law.” Artega v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 733 F.Supp.2d 1218, 1227 (E.D. Cal. 2010). In Artega,
12
a district court from the Eastern District of California collected various cases and articulated
13
general guidelines as to what types of conduct fall within the scope of section 1692d. See id. at
14
1227-29. The court stated that a debt collector may be liable for “immediately re-calling a debtor
15
after a debtor has hung up the telephone[,]” or for “continuing to call the debtor after the debtor
16
has requested that the debt collector cease and desist communication[,]” or for “calling a debtor
17
outside of his or her home--by calling the debtor’s workplace or the homes of a debtor’s family
18
and friends--or calling at inconvenient hours[.]” Id. at 1227-28. By contrast, a debt collector’s
19
“single laugh” during a phone call initiated by the debtor, a statement that repayment was
20
“urgent” and “time sensitive,” or telling the debtor they “were going to get their money one way
21
or another, yelling that Georgia was a garnishable state, then hanging up,” has been found to not
22
violate section 1692d as a matter of law. Id. at 1228-29.
23
The Ninth Circuit’s most substantive analysis with regard to section 1692d, albeit brief,
24
was in Fox v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., 15 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Fox”). The district
25
court had granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector on grounds that the plaintiff had
26
failed to show the debt collector’s actions were unreasonable. Id. at 1516. The Ninth Circuit
27
reversed, holding that “[t]hreatening and intimidating calls to a consumer at an inconvenient time
28
or place could rationally support a jury finding of harassing conduct.” Id. The plaintiff in Fox
10
1
had testified that the debt collector’s phone calls were “intimidating and threatening,” that the
2
debt collector threatened to garnish the plaintiff’s wages and demanded overnight payments, and
3
that the debt collector called the plaintiff at work after she requested to not be called there on two
4
previous occasions. Id.
5
Assuming Plaintiff’s allegations to be true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim
6
for relief under section 1692d. Two days after Plaintiff requested that Green Tree not call
7
anymore, a debt collector from Green Tree called Plaintiff and “proceeded to bully” her. FAC ¶
8
19; see Fox, 15 F.3d at 1516 (the debt collector called the plaintiff at work after being told not to
9
call there, and those calls were “[t]hreatening and intimidating”). Plaintiff also alleges that the
debt collector said Plaintiff “was choosing the wrong decision to go up against BofA,” and further
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
alleges that the debt collector “said they will contact [Plaintiff’s] husband’s employer… because
12
they can garnish … wages to pay back the debt.” FAC ¶ 19; see Fox, 15 F.3d at 1516 (the debt
13
collector threatened to garnish the plaintiff’s wages).
14
Plaintiff’s allegations also specify that Defendant violated 1692d(2), which prohibits the
15
use of “obscene or profane language.” See FAC ¶ 22. Plaintiff alleges that the debt collector
16
accused her of stealing the money, and asked her how she could “be an American” while knowing
17
that she stole this money. Id. While being called a thief and un-American is not “obscene or
18
profane language” per se, section 1692d(2) also prohibits other “language the natural
19
consequence of which is to abuse the hearer[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2); see also Jeter, 760 F.2d at
20
1178 (“subsection (2) was meant to deter offensive language which is at least akin to profanity or
21
obscenity. Such offensive language might encompass name-calling, racial or ethnic slurs, and
22
other derogatory remarks which are similar in their offensiveness to obscene or profane
23
remarks.”). The Court finds the foregoing allegations sufficient to survive Defendant’s Motion to
24
Dismiss on Plaintiff’s section 1692d claim.
25
26
2.
Section 1692e
Section 1692e prohibits debt collectors from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading
27
representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.
28
Courts consider section 1692e claims under the “least sophisticated consumer” standard.
11
1
Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc., 869 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1988). In order to
2
determine whether conduct violates section 1692e, courts must undergo “an objective analysis
3
that takes into account whether ‘the least sophisticated debtor would likely be misled by a
4
communication.’” Donohue, 592 F.3d at 1030 (citing Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499
5
F.3d 926, 934 (9th Cir. 2007)). Like the other sections of the FDCPA, section 1692e contains
6
subsections which describe specific conduct which is in violation of the section.
7
Two of Plaintiff’s allegations fit well within the scope of section 1692e. First, Plaintiff
8
alleges that one of Green Tree’s personnel accused her of “stealing.” FAC ¶ 19. Under
9
subsection (7), a debt collector violates section 1692e by falsely representing or implying “that
the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.” 15
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
U.S.C. § 1692e(7). Second, Plaintiff alleges that Green Tree threatened to contact Plaintiff’s
12
husband’s employer and stated that Green Tree can garnish his wages. FAC ¶ 19. Under
13
subsection (4), a debt collector violates section 1692e by representing or implying that
14
nonpayment will result in “garnishment” of “wages of any person unless such action is lawful and
15
the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.”4 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4). Reading the
16
allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the allegations imply that Defendant did not
17
intend to garnish the wages because such garnishment would have been unlawful. See id.
18
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a claim for relief under section
19
1692e.
20
Plaintiff’s other allegations may provide a further basis for Green Tree’s liability under
21
section 1692e. Subsection (2)(A) of section 1692e prohibits debt collectors from falsely
22
representing the “legal status” of a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A); see also 15 U.S.C. §
23
1692e(10) (a debt collector cannot use “false representation or deceptive means to collect or
24
attempt to collect any debt”). Plaintiff alleges that Green Tree personnel stated “they will do
25
4
26
27
28
The fact that Plaintiff did not specifically allege a violation of subsection (4) of section
1692e is immaterial. The subsections of each section are not separate causes of action. Rather,
the subsections provide a nonexhaustive list of examples which violate the section. See 15
U.S.C. § 1692e (“Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct
is a violation of this section”) (emphasis added).
12
1
everything in their power to come after [Plaintiff and her husband] to get all their money back[.]”
2
FAC ¶ 19. This statement may have misrepresented the “legal status” of Plaintiff’s debt if
3
Defendant in fact had no further “power” than to request that Plaintiff pay the debt voluntarily.
4
Whether this was a misrepresentation of the debt’s “legal status” turns on whether Plaintiff’s debt
5
is protected by California Code of Civil Procedure § 580b, which “closes the courthouse door on
6
any creditor’s collection efforts against the mortgagor.” Herrera, 2009 WL 2912517, *8; Cal.
7
Code Civ. Proc. § 580b. This question requires, at the very least, proof that Plaintiff’s loan was a
8
purchase money loan, and therefore cannot be answered until the Court can consider evidence.
9
For purposes of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
10
allegations are sufficient.5
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
3.
Section 1692f
Section 1692f proscribes debt collectors from using “unfair or unconscionable means to
13
collect or attempt to collect any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Like section 1692e, determining
14
whether conduct violates section 1692f “requires an objective analysis that takes into account
15
whether ‘the least sophisticated debtor would likely be misled by a communication.’” Donohue,
16
592 F.3d at 1030 (citing Guerrero, 499 F.3d at 934). Moreover, as with the other FDCPA
17
sections, section 1692f provides a nonexhaustive list of examples of “unfair or unconscionable
18
means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” See id. For instance, a debt collector violates
19
section 1692f by collecting more than what is owed by contract (§ 1692f(1)), by accepting,
20
soliciting or depositing a postdated check (§ 1692f(2)-(4)), by charging a debtor for
21
communications (i.e. collect calls) by concealing the true purpose of the communication (§
22
1692f(5)), by threatening to take nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of
23
property (§ 1692f(6)), by communicating with the debtor via post card (§ 1692f(7)), or by using
24
any language or symbol other than the debt collector’s address on an envelope (§ 1692f(8)).
25
26
27
28
Here, Plaintiff does not allege that Green Tree attempted to collect more than the amount
of her debt or that Green Tree engaged in any other “unfair or unconscionable” conduct as
5
The Court does not decide at this time whether Plaintiff’s loan fits within the scope of
California Code of Civil Procedure § 580b because that question is not necessary for purposes of
this Motion.
13
1
des
scribed sectio 1692f’s other subsect
on
o
tions. Altho
ough the subsections provide a nonex
xhaustive
2
list of examples these exam
s,
mples are ins
structive as t the type o conduct w
to
of
which violates section
3
169
92f. Plaintif does not al
ff
llege any fac which co me close to the conduct prohibited b section
cts
by
4
169
92f. This case is not like Fox in this regard, whe the Ninth Circuit rev
e
ere
h
versed the dis
strict
5
cou
urt’s grant of summary ju
f
udgment on the section 1692f claim because “a j
jury could ra
ationally
6
find the filing of an applica
d
o
ation for a wr of garnish
rit
hment when the Foxes w current in
n
were
7
pay
yments … to constitute an unfair or unconsciona
o
a
u
able means o collection or attempted
of
d
8
collection.” Fo 15 F.3d at 1517. Plai
ox,
a
intiff’s First Amended C
t
Complaint on includes a
nly
9
con
nclusory alle
egation that Green Tree’s actions wer “unfair an unconscio
G
s
re
nd
onable,” but such an
alle
egation does not pass Ru 8(a) must
ule
ter. See Iqba 556 U.S. at 663 (“the tenet that a court must
al,
e
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
acc a complaint’s allega
cept
ations as true is inapplica
e
able to … mere concluso statemen
ory
nts”).
12
The
erefore, Plain
ntiff’s sectio 1692f clai is dismis
on
im
ssed without prejudice.
13
V.
14
CONCL
LUSION
For the foregoing re
easons, Defe
endant’s Mot
tion to Dism Plaintiff First Ame
miss
f’s
ended
15
Com
mplaint is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s §§ 1692d an 1692e cla
D
o
nd
aims, and GR
RANTED as to
s
16
Pla
aintiff’s § 1692f claim. The § 1692f claim is dism
T
missed with leave to am
h
mend. If Plaintiff
17
cho
ooses to ame the comp
end
plaint, she must file an a
m
amended com
mplaint withi thirty (30) days of
in
18
the date of this Order.
19
20
O
ED.
IT IS SO ORDERE
Dat
ted: Decemb 14, 2012
ber
2
21
__________
___________
________
___
Jos
seph C. Sper
ro
Un
nited States M
Magistrate Ju
udge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?