No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect a covered debt by means of the following practices:
(a)Obtaining an affirmation from a debtor of a covered debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy, without clearly and conspicuously disclosing to the debtor, in writing, at the time the affirmation is sought, the fact that the debtor is not legally obligated to make an
affirmation.
(b)Collecting or attempting to collect from the debtor the whole or any part of the debt collector’s fee or charge for services rendered, or other expense incurred by the debt collector in the collection of the covered debt, except as permitted by law.
(c)Initiating communications, other than statements of account, with the debtor with regard to the covered debt, when the debt collector has been previously notified in writing by the debtor’s attorney that the debtor is
represented by the attorney with respect to the
covered debt and the notice includes the attorney’s name and address and a request by the attorney that all communications regarding the covered debt be addressed to the attorney, unless the attorney fails to answer correspondence, return telephone calls, or discuss the obligation in question. This subdivision shall not apply if prior approval has been obtained from the debtor’s attorney, or if the communication is a response in the ordinary course of business to a debtor’s inquiry.
(d)Sending a written communication to a debtor in an attempt to collect a time-barred debt without providing the debtor with one of the following written notices:
(1)If the debt is not past the date for obsolescence set forth in Section 605(a) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c), the following notice shall be included in the first written communication provided to the debtor after the debt has become time-barred:
“The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt, [insert name of debt collector] may [continue to] report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid for as long as the law permits this reporting.”
(2)If the debt is past the date for obsolescence set forth in Section 605(a) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c), the following notice shall be included in the first written communication provided to the debtor after the date for obsolescence:
“The law
limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it, and we will not report it to any credit reporting agency.”
(e)Collecting consumer debt that originated with a hospital licensed pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code without including in the first written communication to the debtor a copy of the notice required pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 127425 of the Health and Safety Code and a statement that the debt collector will wait at least 180 days from the date the debtor was initially billed for the hospital services that are the basis of the debt before filing a lawsuit against the debtor.
(f)For purposes of this section, “first written
communication” means the first communication sent to the debtor in writing or by facsimile, email, or other similar means.
Notes of Decisions
Moya v. Chase Cardmember Serv., 661 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
“” Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.14. 8 . Defendant disputes that the toll free number connects to defendant's collection department; however, on a motion to dismiss, I must accept as true all well-pleaded facts stated in plaintiff's Complaint, and must construe all reasonable inferences…”
Lachi v. GE Capital Bank, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (S.D. Cal. 2014).
“§ 1692c(a)(2); (2) violation of the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code § 1788.17, through violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.”
Tong v. Capital Mgmt. Servs. Grp., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
“Therefore, for the same reasons set forth above, the court concludes that plaintiff sufficiently alleges the second cause of action against CMS under the RFDCPA, Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.14(c) and 1788.17. III.”
Martindale v. MegaStar Fin. Corp (E.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” 15 FAC ¶ 105; Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.14 (b). “Because [Defendant’s] convenience fee is a 16 charge for providing .”
Torliatt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 2× “14(b), which prohibits collection of a “debtor collector’s 6 fee or charge for services rendered, or other expense incurred by the debt collector in the 7 collection of the consumer debt, except as permitted by law,” Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.14 ; and (iii) 8 section 1788.”
Chai v. Nat'l Enter. Sys. CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
“” (Civ. Code, § 1788.14, subd. (d)(2).) After filing a response to the complaint, in which it alleged that Chai’s claims might be subject to an arbitration provision contained within the agreement between Chai and Citibank, NES filed a motion to compel arbitration.”
Elbert v. Roundpoint Mortg. Servicing Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2020).
“13 ; see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.14 5 (same). A "debt," for purposes of the Rosenthal Act, "means money, property, or their 6 equivalent, that is due or owing or alleged to be due or owning from a natural person to 7 another person.”
Allison v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D. Cal. 2022).
“§ 227 , and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt 13 Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.14 (c). Defendant then filed 14 the present Motion.”
Miraglia v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency (S.D. Cal. 2024).
“§ 1692c and 5 Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.14 are based on PHEAA’s continued communications with Plaintiff 6 after she notified PHEAA that she was represented by an attorney and that she wished to 7 cease further communications with it.”
Miraglia v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency (S.D. Cal. 2024).
“§ 1692c and 5 Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.14 are based on PHEAA’s continued communications with Plaintiff 6 after he notified PHEAA that he was represented by an attorney and that he wished to cease 7 further communications with it.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1788.14(b) — 1 case
Martindale v. MegaStar Fin. Corp (E.D. Cal. 2021).
“” 15 FAC ¶ 105; Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.14 (b). “Because [Defendant’s] convenience fee is a 16 charge for providing .”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1788.14(c) — 3 cases
Lachi v. GE Capital Bank, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (S.D. Cal. 2014).
“§ 1692c(a)(2); (2) violation of the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code § 1788.17, through violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.”
Tong v. Capital Mgmt. Servs. Grp., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
“Therefore, for the same reasons set forth above, the court concludes that plaintiff sufficiently alleges the second cause of action against CMS under the RFDCPA, Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.14(c) and 1788.17. III.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.