District Court (Cal.) Finds Debt Collector Acted Properly in Interactions with Debtor’s Employer

In Ayala v. Creditors Specialty Service, Inc., 2012 WL 5198482 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge O’Neill found that, if true, a debt collector acted properly in its communications with the debtor’s employer.

With regard to the merits of plaintiff’s claims, she argues that she is entitled to summary judgment on her § 1692b(2) and Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.17 claims be-cause CSS disclosed to her assistant that she owed a debt. ¶  As discussed above, under 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(2), “[a]ny debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall—… not state that such consumer owes any debt.”  ¶  There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CSS disclosed to plaintiff’s assistant that plaintiff owed a debt. The declaration submitted by plaintiff’s assistant, Ms. Ceja, provides that CSS dis-closed to Ms. Ceja that plaintiff owed a debt and needed to pay. (Doc. 24–8). The declaration of Ms. McCabe, submitted by CSS, provides that at no time did Ms. McCabe state that CSS was trying to collect a debt from plaintiff. (Doc. 27–2, ¶ 3). According to Ms. McCabe, she told the person who answered the phone that she was calling regarding a private personal matter for plaintiff. (Doc. 27–2, ¶ 2). Ms. McCabe’s declaration further provides that she asked what hours plaintiff is normally available, the business address, and plaintiff’s supervisor’s name. (Id.). Because there is a dispute as to whether CSS disclosed to a third party that plaintiff owed a debt, plaintiff’s request for summary judgment on her § 1692b(2) and Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.17 claims is DENIED. ¶  In plaintiff’s reply brief, she argues that even if Ms. McCabe’s declaration is true and admissible and she did not disclose that plaintiff owed a debt to Ms. Ceja, the undisputed facts still show that CSS violated § 1692b(2) by asking for plaintiff’s supervisor’s name.FN2 Under § 1692b(2) “[a]ny debt collector communicating with any person other than the con-sumer for the purpose of acquiring location infor-mation about the consumer shall—… not state that such consumer owes any debt.” Based on a plain reading of the statute, whether CSS asked for plain-tiff’s supervisor’s name would not be a violation of § 1692b(2).