Does

O

2 3 4 5 6

United States District Court Central District of California

11 RAPHAEL AUSTRIA, Case № 2:20-cv-05019-ODW (PVCx)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v.

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT

14 ALORICA, INC. et al., EGS’S MOTION TO DISMISS [91]

15 Defendants.

16 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Raphael Austria asserts four claims against Defendant EGS Financial 19 Care, Inc. (“EGS”) arising from EGS’s debt collection activities. (Second Am. 20 Compl. (“SAC”), ECF No. 76.) Before the Court is EGS’s Motion to Dismiss 21 Austria’s SAC. (Mot., ECF No. 91.) For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS 22 IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion.1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This case arises from EGS’s2 attempts to collect a debt Austria owed related to 25 his account at Credit One Bank. (SAC ¶ 17.) Credit One Bank and EGS had a vendor

1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the 27 matter appropriate for decision without oral…