Herrera v. AllianceOne Receivable Management, Inc.
170 F. Supp. 3d 1282
S.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Gilverto and Claudia Herrera received a Franchise Tax Board demand in Jan. 2012 for traffic-ticket debt allegedly submitted by AllianceOne referencing a different person; Plaintiffs disputed identity and provided ID, visited AllianceOne’s office, and challenged the seizure.
- Plaintiffs’ tax refund was seized; they won a state-court judgment in May 2012 restoring funds and removing citations from Gilverto’s driving record.
- Plaintiffs allege AllianceOne continued calling and mailing, furnished adverse credit information, and caused credit harm (denied credit, higher rates, refinance difficulty) that affected Gilverto’s DoD security clearance and employment evaluation.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims including conversion, B&P violations, negligence, invasion of privacy, TCPA (two counts), Bane Act, CCRAA, FCRA, and § 1983 equal protection/due process; previous order dismissed FDCPA and Rosenthal Act claims.
- AllianceOne moved to partially dismiss the FAC (targeting the TCPA, CCRAA, Bane Act, and § 1983 claims) and to strike FDCPA/Rosenthal allegations; the Court granted in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of TCPA to prerecorded/auto dialed debt-collection calls to non-debtors | Herrera: calls used prerecorded/auto-dialer without consent and were not exempt because plaintiffs are non-debtors | AllianceOne: debt-collection calls (even to non-debtors) are exempt under FCC rules and not covered by TCPA prohibitions | Dismissed TCPA claims; court follows precedent that FCC exemption covers debt-collection calls to non-debtors (grant) |
| CCRAA liability for furnishing inaccurate credit information | Herrera: AllianceOne knew or should have known the information was inaccurate after identity dispute and communications | AllianceOne: challenges sufficiency of allegations | CCRAA claim survives: allegations plausibly show AllianceOne should have known information might be inaccurate (denial of motion) |
| Bane Act (coercion/threat) | Herrera: repeated calls, fear of identity theft, loss of security clearance, time off work, and physical/mental harm amount to coercion/intimidation | AllianceOne: no threatening language or force; mere debt-collection calls are insufficient for Bane Act coercion | Bane Act claim dismissed: no threats of violence and no alleged coercion sufficient to support section 52.1 (grant) |
| § 1983 due process and equal protection claims (state action/rights deprivation) | Herrera: AllianceOne deprived plaintiffs of liberty/property (security clearance, employment, credit) without due process and violated equal protection | AllianceOne: Plaintiffs fail to plead a protected interest, state-action basis, or discriminatory intent | § 1983 claims dismissed: Fifth Amendment claim improper; Fourteenth Amendment claims fail for lack of identified protected interest and no discrimination intent (grant) |
| Motion to strike FDCPA and Rosenthal Act allegations | Herrera: (no response filed on this point) | AllianceOne: prior summary-judgment ruling already dismissed these claims; they are immaterial/redundant | Motion to strike granted: FDCPA and Rosenthal Act portions of FAC struck consistent with prior order |
Key Cases Cited
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (12(b)(6) standard — evaluate legal theory and factual sufficiency)
- Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995) (pleading facts taken as true and construed for plaintiff on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must show entitlement to relief beyond mere possibility)
- Watson v. NCO Group, Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 641 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (non-debtor privacy interest supports TCPA protection for mistaken debt calls)
- Franasiak v. Palisades Collection, LLC, 822 F. Supp. 2d 320 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (debt-collection calls exempt under FCC rules even when recipient is not a debtor)
- Meadows v. Franklin Collection Serv., Inc., 414 Fed. Appx. 230 (11th Cir. 2011) (recognizing FCC exemption for prerecorded debt-collection calls)
- Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.4th 820 (2004) (Bane Act interpretation permitting non-animus-based claims where threats/coercion present)
- Ex Parte Bell, 19 Cal.2d 488 (1942) (coercion standard requiring force—physical or moral—to compel action)
- Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1991) (§ 1983 requires state action causing constitutional violation)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (limitations on Fifth Amendment due process claims against state actors)
- Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1993) (elements of procedural due process claim)
- Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2008) (substantive due process threshold showing state deprivation of protected interest)
- Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2005) (equal protection § 1983 requires discriminatory intent)
- Whittleston, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (motion to strike under Rule 12(f) to avoid litigation of spurious issues)
Decision summary: Court granted AllianceOne’s motion in part and denied in part. TCPA, Bane Act, and § 1983 claims dismissed without prejudice; CCRAA claim survives; FDCPA and Rosenthal Act allegations stricken. Plaintiffs may amend within 15 days.