An Magistrate judge in California has recommended denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, ruling the plaintiff revoked consent to be contacted and adequately alleged that the company continued to make calls despite that revocation.
The background: The case began after the plaintiff entered into a financing contract for HVAC equipment in 2022 that was later assigned to the defendant. A billing dispute arose in 2024 after the plaintiff allegedly tendered payment of the remaining principal, which the defendant rejected, adding roughly $1,100 to the balance.
- When the plaintiff sought an explanation and disputed the debt, she claimed the defendant began a “malicious collection campaign” that included 47 automated calls using prerecorded voices, continued contact after cease-and-desist letters, and even an unannounced visit to her home.
- The plaintiff alleged violations of the FDCPA, TCPA, and Fair Credit Reporting Act, arguing she revoked consent in multiple letters and that the company acknowledged her request to stop communications.
- The defendant countered that its actions complied with the law and that the plaintiff’s revocation was conditional and limited only until the debt was validated.
The ruling: Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the District Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the district court allow the plaintiff’s TCPA claim and parts of her FDCPA and Rosenthal Act claims to move forward, finding sufficient evidence that she “clearly expressed a desire not to be contacted.” The judge cited both the plaintiff’s letters and the company’s own written acknowledgment that it had updated its records to reflect her request to cease communication.
- Judge Grosjean found the argument that the plaintiff could still be contacted “in her capacity as a representative” unconvincing, writing that “nothing in Defendant’s documents indicate that it held this view of Plaintiff’s revocation of consent at the time.” The judge concluded that “liberally construing the record in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has adequately alleged that she revoked her consent.”
- As a result, the court recommended allowing the TCPA and related FDCPA claims regarding unauthorized communications and harassment to proceed, while dismissing claims tied to the FCRA, the Fair Credit Billing Act, and the debt verification portions of the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act.
