Varnado
Varnado v. Midland Funding LLC
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Ryu, J.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [DOCKET NO. 15]
Defendants Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“MCM”) and Midland Funding, LLC (“MF”) (collectively, “Midland”) have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [Docket No. 15.] Midland seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Karen Varnado’s state law causes of action for negligence and intru *988 sion upon seclusion, and Plaintiffs requests for punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. 1692, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ.Code § 1788 et seq.
The court finds that the motion is appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1 (b). For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. FACTS
The following facts are taken from the allegations in the complaint. See Docket No. 1. Plaintiff obtained and used a credit card from Saks Fifth Avenue, through HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. Compl. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff used the card primarily for personal, family and household purposes. Id. Plaintiff…