District Court (Cal.) Says Debt Collector’s Including Rosenthal Act’s Legal Requirements In Dunning Letter Was Not Misleading

In Verdun v. Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc., 2017 WL 1047109 (S.D. Cal. 2017), Magistrate Judge Bartick granted partial summary judgment to a debt collector that its letter was not misleading under the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act.

Here, Defendant included in its letter to Plaintiff a sentence summarizing section 1788.21 of the California Civil Code. The sentence read, “The Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code Section 1788.21, requires that within a reasonable time you notify your creditor or prospective creditor of any change in your name, address, or employment, if and only if the creditor clearly and conspicuously in writing disclosed such responsibility to you.” . . . A debt collector does not violate the FDCPA by including in a debt collection letter an accurate, relevant statement of law. See Anderson v. Credit Collection Servs., 322 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1097–99 (S.D. Cal. 2004); Robbins v. Wolpoff & Abramson LLP, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1013–15 (E.D. Wis. 2006). . . Here, the Court finds that Defendant’s summary of section 1788.21 in the letter sent to Plaintiff is an accurate representation of the law. Defendant’s letter only slightly modifies the statutory language of section 1788.21. In no way does Defendant’s letter change the meaning of section 1788.21. Instead, Defendant’s letter truthfully explains section 1788.21’s requirements in a way that is easier to understand than the actual statutory language. The Court concurs with Anderson v. Credit Collection Services, 322 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (S.D. Cal. 2004) and Robbins v. Wolpoff & Abramson LLP, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (E.D. Wis. 2006), and finds that including in a debt collection letter an accurate statement of law—with nothing more to change its meaning—is not false, misleading, or deceptive, and therefore does not violate the FDCPA. Therefore, Defendant did not violate the FDCPA by including in its debt collection letter an accurate summary of section 1788.21. . . .Defendant’s letter simply summarizes section 1788.21 and the potential requirements it sets forth between Plaintiff and the creditor, which Defendant never purports to be.  In sum, the Court finds that Defendant did not violate the FDCPA by including in its debt collection letter an accurate summary of section 1788.21.