Tamara Diaz v. Kubler Corporation

This appeal involves a suit by a debtor against a debt collector, alleging that by sending a collection letter that sought ten percent interest on the debt, the debt collector violated the provision of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(l) and thereby also violated California’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1788-1788.33. The district court agreed that the debt collector violated the FDCPA and the Rosénthal Act, and granted summary judgment in the debtor’s favor. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand.

I.

Congress passed the FDCPA to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (e). To that end, the statute prohibits debt collectors from trying to collect any amount that is not “expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(l). A debt collector does not violate this provision if the amounts it seeks are authorized by state law. See Allen ex rel. Martin v. LaSalle Bank, NA., 629 F.3d 364, 369 (3d Cir.2011);…