Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05266/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05266-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN BREAZEALE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VICTIM SERVICES, INC. D/B/A 

CORRECTIVESOLUTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05266-VC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 26, 28

The motions to dismiss the complaint and to strike the state law claims are denied.

Motion to Dismiss

1. If the defendants are "debt collectors" within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the complaint plausibly alleges that the defendants violated the FDCPA 

in a number of ways – most obviously by not identifying themselves as debt collectors in letters to 

bad check offenders. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the FDCPA claim hinges on the contention 

that the defendants are excluded from the definition of a "debt collector" by 15 U.S.C. § 1692p. 

But taking the allegations in the complaint as true, the defendants do not qualify for the exclusion. 

Among other things, to qualify for the exclusion, a private entity contracting with a district 

attorney's office to administer a bad check diversion program may only send an alleged offender a 

letter if the district attorney has found probable cause of a bad check violation. 

§ 1692p(a)(2)(C)(iv)(I). The defendants contend that the district attorneys require the defendants 

to take screening measures that weed out potential offenders for whom probable cause does not 

exist. This approach may or may not be enough to satisfy the statutory requirement that a 

"determination" of probable cause be made by the district attorney, but in any event the complaint 

plausibly alleges that the defendants did not effectively implement the measures imposed by 

district attorneys, and that the defendants did not do so for the named plaintiffs in this case. 

Case 3:14-cv-05266-VC Document 63 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. There is no basis for abstention. See, e.g., Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, 

Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1213 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Del Campo v. Mealing, No. 01-cv-21151, 

Docket No. 230 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2006).

3. The state law claims survive the motion to dismiss as well. At a minimum, the UCL 

claim survives because it successfully alleges unlawful conduct by the defendants, namely, 

violation of the FDCPA. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim survives because it's plausible, 

based on the allegations in the complaint, including allegations about the defendants' history of 

violating the statute, that the defendants knew they were violating the FDCPA, and knew they 

were misleading people by sending them letters implying that they would be prosecuted if they 

didn't participate in the diversion program. And therefore, by definition, the claim for negligent 

misrepresentation survives.

Motion to Strike

California's anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to this case because the plaintiffs' state law 

claims – the only claims to which the anti-SLAPP statute is applicable, see Hilton v. Hallmark 

Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010) – satisfy all the conditions necessary to fall within the 

statute's exception for "action[s] brought solely in the public interest." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 

§ 425.17(b). Particularly, based on the allegations in the complaint, it does not appear that the 

named plaintiffs "seek any relief greater than or different from the relief sought for . . . a class of 

which" they are members. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.17(b)(1). See also Smith, 723 F. Supp. 2d 

at 1218 ("Plaintiffs are not seeking more for themselves than they are for the unnamed class 

members.").

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05266-VC Document 63 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 2