Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01466/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01466-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
Defendant
Nicasio Sandoval
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICASIO SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH 

PLAN, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 1:14-CV-1466-GEB-BAM 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE 

STATEMENT

Defendant moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

(“Rule”) 12(b)(6) for dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”) or in the alternative, under Rule 12(e) for a 

more definite statement. 

Plaintiff’s FAC is comprised of claims alleged under 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and California’s 

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”). 

The FAC contains the following allegations. “In or around April 

of 201[4,] Defendant began . . . contacting [him]... regarding an 

alleged outstanding debt.” (FAC ¶ 9, ECF No. 18.) He was 

contacted “on at least . . . April 11, 2014, May 5, 2014, May 22, 

2014, May 25, 2014, and June 8, 2014” without his prior express 

Case 1:14-cv-01466-GEB-BAM Document 21 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

consent; the calls were made using an “automatic dialing system,” 

were not made for an emergency purpose, and “Plaintiff incur[red]

a charge for [the] . . . calls.” (FAC ¶¶ 11, 12-15.)

Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s TCPA claim in 

the FAC, arguing it contains “bare legal conclusions,” making “it 

virtually impossible. . . to investigate” the claim. (Def.’s Mem. 

ISO Mot. Dismiss FAC (“Mot.”) 2:28-3:1, 2:19; 3:7, ECF No. 15-1.) 

The TCPA prescribes it is “unlawful [inter alia] for 

any person. . . to make any call (other than a call made for 

emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the 

called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system . . . 

to any telephone number assigned to . . . any service for which 

the called party is charged for the call.” 47 U.S.C. §

227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

Defendant has not shown Plaintiff’s TCPA claim is 

implausible under the applicable dismissal standard. Nor has 

Defendant shown Plaintiff should be required to give a more 

definite statement of this claim. Therefore, this portion of the 

motion is denied. 

Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s Rosenthal Act

claims, arguing Plaintiff’s allegations do not provide enough 

information about the content of the alleged calls to plausibly 

state a Rosenthal Act claim. (Mot. 4:17-18; 4:4-5.) Plaintiff’s 

Rosenthal Act claims alleges Defendant violated two separate 

statutes, one of which is a federal statute that the Rosenthal 

Act incorporates as a violation of California law: 15 U.S.C. § 

1692(d) and Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.11(e). (FAC ¶ 27).

15 U.S.C. § 1692(d) prohibits a debt collector from,

Case 1:14-cv-01466-GEB-BAM Document 21 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

inter alia, “engag[ing] in any conduct the natural consequence of 

which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person.” Since “[t]here 

are no facts alleged as to the content of the calls,” Plaintiff 

fails to allege a plausible claim under this statute. Lopez v. 

Prof’l Collection Consultants, No. CV-11-3214 PDG (PLAx), 2011 WL 

4964886, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011.) Therefore, this claim 

is dismissed.

Further, section 1788.11(e) states in relevant part: 

“No debt collector shall . . . attempt to collect a consumer debt 

by . . . communicating . . . with the debtor with such frequency

as to . . . to constitute an harassment . . . under the 

circumstances.” Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state 

a plausible claim under this statute. Therefore, this claim is 

dismissed.

For the stated reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s FAC is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and its 

motion for a more definite statement is DENIED. Plaintiff is 

granted ten (10) days from the date on which this order is filed 

to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies in 

any claim dismissed. 

Dated: February 6, 2015

Case 1:14-cv-01466-GEB-BAM Document 21 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 3