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 DENYING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, Re: Dkt. No. 48 INC., et al., Defendants.
Capital One’s motion to dismiss is denied. Ramirez alleges that Capital One violated section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—and therefore the Rosenthal Act—by calling her to collect a debt that did not belong to her. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (prohibiting debt collectors from using “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”); Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17 (incorporating by reference section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act). The act of calling Ramirez one time about a debt—and confirming on that same call that Ramirez was not the debtor—appears both innocent and harmless. But the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a strict liability statute. Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Services, Inc., 755 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2014). It is also a remedial statute that “should be construed liberally in favor of the consumer.” Id. at 1118.…