Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON E. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-1767 SI

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

FILED BY DEFENDANT BOOKSA

Defendant Booksa moves to dismiss plaintiff’s Rosenthal Act claim. Defendant contends that

this claim is barred by California’s litigation privilege because it is based on statements made in the state

court collection complaint that Booksa filed against plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed a statement of nonopposition to the motion, stating that he inadvertently named Booksa as a defendant in the Rosenthal

Act claim. Plaintiff does not address defendant’s California litigation privilege arguments.

The Court GRANTS defendant’s motion. (Docket No. 14). As an attorney, Booksa is not a

“debt collector” under the Rosenthal Act, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c), and thus is not a proper

defendant under this claim. See id. at § 1788.17 (imposing liability on a “debt collector”). As such, the

Court finds it unnecessary to reach defendant’s arguments regarding the applicability of the California

litigation privilege.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 26 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 1