Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03401/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03401-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY DONNELL RAMSIRE, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COLLECTCORP, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-03401 WHA

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND VACATING HEARING

In this putative class action alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., the complaint was filed on August 22, 2005. On

November 17, 2005, the Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. In accordance with that

order, plaintiff filed this motion for leave to amend on November 28, 2005. Counsel was

advised that the Court was treating this motion as one for administrative relief pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 7–11. An opposition was timely filed.

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to (1) add allegations that defendant violated the

FDCPA by falsely representing that interest would continue to accrue on the account if payment

was not made; (2) add claims under the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,

Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq.; and (3) limit the proposed class to residents of California who

received a collection letter sent by defendant on behalf of Citicorp-Bankcards.

“In the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad faith or

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments

Case 3:05-cv-03401-WHA Document 20 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

amendment, futility of amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be

‘freely given.’” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); FRCP 15(a). Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 

That said, Paragraphs 9 and 11 of the proposed amended complaint are rejected to the

extent that plaintiff continues to allege a violation of the FDCPA on the basis that defendant

threatened to continue collection efforts unless payment in full was received. Defendant

correctly points out that this issue has already been adjudicated in its favor. Nor would any

class, if certified, be comprised of persons who had received only the initial collection letter. 

Even if plaintiff proves up his theory that defendant falsely represented that interest would

continue to accrue on his account, only persons who had subsequently received a second letter

reflecting an amount due that suggested no interest had actually accrued since the initial

collection letter would be members of the putative class.

A revised pleading addressing these concerns shall be filed by DECEMBER 5, 2005. 

Defendant shall have ten days after the first amended complaint is filed to file a responsive

pleading thereto. The hearing noticed for JANUARY 26, 2006 AT 8:00 A.M. is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03401-WHA Document 20 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2