38 F. Supp. 3d 1130
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Stevin Masuda, not a Citibank customer, alleges Citibank placed over 300 automated calls to his cell phone between April and November 2013 seeking to collect a Citibank Mastercard debt.
- Masuda alleges he twice told Citibank by phone, sent two letters, and emailed once to stop the calls, but calls continued.
- Masuda filed a first amended complaint asserting: (1) violation of California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act), (2) violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and (3) intrusion upon seclusion.
- Citibank moved to dismiss the Rosenthal Act and intrusion claims for failure to state a claim; the TCPA claim was not challenged in this motion.
- The court treated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standards (Twombly/Iqbal) and considered whether Masuda plausibly alleged he was a “debtor,” Citibank a “debt collector,” and whether repeated calls could amount to offensive intrusion.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding Masuda plausibly alleged Rosenthal Act standing/coverage and sufficiently pleaded intrusion upon seclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Masuda is a "debtor" under the Rosenthal Act | Masuda alleged Citibank sought to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed by him, placing him within the statute's definition | Citibank: Masuda is not a debtor and thus lacks standing under the Rosenthal Act | Held: Masuda sufficiently alleged he was alleged to owe a debt and thus has standing under the Rosenthal Act |
| Whether Citibank is a "debt collector" under the Rosenthal Act | Masuda: Citibank attempted to collect a consumer debt (on its own behalf), fitting the Rosenthal Act definition | Citibank: Not a debt collector as defined | Held: Citibank’s attempts to collect its own credit-card debt qualify it as a debt collector under the Rosenthal Act |
| Whether repeated automated calls can constitute harassment under incorporated FDCPA provisions | Masuda: >300 calls after repeat notices to stop plausibly show conduct intended to harass under FDCPA §1692d and thus violate Rosenthal Act §1788.17 | Citibank: Calls do not state a harassment claim / insufficient facts | Held: Allegations of repeated calls despite stop requests plausibly state an FDCPA-based harassment theory incorporated into the Rosenthal Act |
| Whether facts support intrusion upon seclusion | Masuda: Repeated daily calls (up to six/day), confirmation he was not the debtor, and continued calls after requests to stop are highly offensive | Citibank: Complaint lacks sufficient facts to show intrusion that is highly offensive to a reasonable person | Held: Allegations (frequency, persistence, notice to stop, and confirmation he was not debtor) are sufficient at pleading stage to state intrusion upon seclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausible claim required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts raising claim above speculative level)
- Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 681 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rosenthal Act incorporates FDCPA provisions and remedies)
- Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (repeated calls may support intrusion claim)
- Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Cos., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (numerous collection calls can raise triable intrusion issues)