District Court (Cal.) Finds that Rosenthal Act Did Not Prohibit Debt Collector from Filing State Court Collection Action without Adequate Proof or from Dismissing the Action

In Boon v. Professional Collection Consultants, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2014 WL 353813 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Huff dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim against a debt collector who had filed and dismissed a state court collection action.

Filing a debt collection lawsuit is not a violation of the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act, “even if the debt collector does not at the time of filing have adequate proof to support the claim.” Mansfield v.. Midland Funding, LLC, Case No. 09CV358 L WVG, 2011 WL 1212939, at *5 (S.D.Cal. Mar. 30, 2011) (citing Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324, 333 (6th Cir.2006)); Odish v. CACH, LLC, Case No. 12CV1710 AJB DHB, 2012 WL 5382260, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 1, 2012); Alaan v. Asset Acceptance LLC, Case No. 10CV328–WQH–BLM, 2011 WL 3475378, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 8, 2011).  ¶  Furthermore, a litigant has a legal right to voluntarily dismiss a debt collection action, and such a dismissal does not constitute an FDCPA violation. Odish, 2012 WL 5382260, at *7; Velazquez v. Arrow Fin. Serv. LLC, Case No. 08CV1915H(NLS), 2009 WL 2780372, at *3 (S.D.Cal.2009) (explaining that electing to dismiss a claim without prejudice does not amount to an FDCPA violation); see also  Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 295–96 (1995).  ¶  PCC moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Boon’s allegations of bad faith in the state court action are unsupported by the present in the record. (Doc. No. 26–1 at 8–10.) PCC has submitted its’ account summary notes regarding Boon, which it possessed prior to filing the state court action. (Doc. No. 26–2, Ex. 8, Ex. 9 ¶ 13.) FN2 PCC has also filed a declaration by Todd Shields, President of PCC. ( Id., Ex. 9.) Shields asserts that PCC intended to litigate the state court action to conclusion at the time it was filed, but decided to voluntarily dismiss the case for strategic and financial reasons. ( Id., Ex. 9 ¶ 15.) From this evidence, the Court determines that PCC has met its initial burden to establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact regarding the state court action. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. ¶  Boon responds with a conclusory allegation that PCC’s filing of the state court action constituted a violation of the FDCPA because PCC acted in bad faith and without adequate documentation. (Doc. No. 30 at 19.) But Boon has failed to produce any evidence to show bad faith on the part of PCC in the state court action. Consequently, Boon has not satisfied his burden to show that any genuine issue of material fact remains regarding the state court action. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.