Lopez v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, 1:17-cv-00427

Background

Plaintiff Leon Lopez received a debt-collection letter identifying him as owing $14,516.47 and offering a settlement for roughly $10,000.
The letter also stated that "forgiveness of $600.00 or more may be reported to the IRS on a 1099C Form."
Lopez did not owe the debt; a California court had previously determined he was not the debtor.
Lopez sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California's Rosenthal Act alleging deceptive and false collection communications.
Defendants moved to dismiss; Lopez moved to certify a class. The court considered standing, sufficiency of the complaint, and class-related timing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing from receipt of false collection letter	Receipt of a false communication is a concrete, statutory injury under the FDCPA even if Lopez knew the debt was not his	No concrete injury because Lopez knew he was not the debtor, so no harm or case/controversy under Spokeo	Court: Plaintiff has Article III standing; statutory interest in being free from false communications suffices
Pleading consumer-debt facts	Complaint alleges the action arises from a consumer debt and that, if incurred, it was for personal purposes	Defendants say Lopez cannot know whether it was a consumer debt since he was not the debtor	Court: Allegations accepted as true at this stage satisfy Rule 8; defendant on notice
Requirement to plead defendant's knowledge of prior court order	FDCPA claim must plead defendant knew of the California order prohibiting collection	Defendant argues it's unfair to face liability without being told about the prior order	Court: FDCPA does not require defendant knowledge or intent; complaint need not plead around bona fide error defense
IRS reporting language as deceptive practice	Letter’s IRS language was neutral or accurate and not misleading	Letter omitted exceptions to reporting and plausibly suggested defendants could take actions they were not authorized to take	Court: Allegations about incomplete/misleading IRS statement and suggestion of unauthorized action state a deceptive-practices claim
Class allegations timing and challenge	Lopez seeks class certification now	Defendants moved to strike class allegations in a reply brief and argued Lopez is not a typical representative	Court: Denied request to strike as untimely/undeveloped; plaintiff’s motion for class certification denied without prejudice as premature

Key Cases Cited

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (statutory violations require concrete injury for Article III standing)
Chicago Bldg. Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc., 770 F.3d 610 (complaint need not plead around affirmative defenses such as bona fide error)
Ross v. RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC, 480 F.3d 493 (FDCPA liability does not require deliberate or knowing misrepresentation; bona fide error defense available)
Carlvin v. Ditech Fin. LLC, 237 F. Supp. 3d 753 (similar deceptive-collection-practices claim based on IRS reporting language)
Laurens v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 868 F.3d 622 (timing and standards for class-action procedures)