Magrin

MEMORANDUM *

Frank Magrin appeals the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of his Fair Debt Collection Procedures Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., (“the Act”), claim. We reverse and remand. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

We review a district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. See, e.g., Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1035 (9th Cir.2002). We likewise review de novo interpretation and construction of statutes. See, e.g., Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int’l LLC, 285 F.3d 808 , 813 (9th Cir.2002).

I

Congress designed and enacted the Act in part to “eliminate the recurring problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts [] the consumer has already paid.” See S.Rep. No. 382, 95th Cong.2d Sess. 4, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1695, 1699; see also Baker v. G.C. Servs. *939 Corp., 677 F.2d 775, 777 (9th Cir.1982) (“The Act is designed to protect consumers who have been victimized by unscrupulous debt collectors, regardless…