Ramirez
Ramirez v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ADRIANNA HERRERA RAMIREZ, Case No. 22-cv-02772-VC
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING CAPITAL ONE'S v. MOTION TO DISMISS
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, Re: Dkt. No. 24 INC., et al., Defendants.
Capital One’s motion to dismiss is granted. Ramirez’s only claim against Capital One arises under the Rosenthal Act, which incorporates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by reference. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17. Ramirez alleges that Capital One violated section 1692e of the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from using “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The allegedly violative conduct here—Capital One’s act of selling the debt at issue to Midland Credit Management—does not seem like conduct that is “in connection with” the collection of the debt, at least not as the term “collection” is commonly understood. And Ramirez has provided no authority to support her position. In fact, the cases that Ramirez’s counsel cited during the motion hearing suggest that, far from an act done “in…