Crosby S. Connolly (SBN: 286650)

crosby@westcoastlitigation.com

Robert L. Hyde, Esq. (SBN: 227183)

bob@westcoastlitigation.com

Hyde & Swigart

2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101

San Diego, CA 92108

Office Number: (619) 233-7770

Office Fax Number: (619) 297-1022

Attorneys for Sonia E. Anaya

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

1. Sonia E. Anaya, (“Plaintiff”), through Plaintiff's attorneys, brings this action 

to challenge the actions of D. Scott Carruthers, A Professional Corporation, 

(“Defendant”), with regard to attempts by Defendant to unlawfully and 

abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, and this conduct caused 

Plaintiff damages.

2. Plaintiff makes these allegations on information and belief, with the exception 

of those allegations that pertain to a plaintiff, which Plaintiff alleges on 

personal knowledge.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 1 of 10 -

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

Sonia E. Anaya,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. Scott Carruthers, A Professional 

Corporation,

 Defendant.

Case No: ________________

Complaint For Damages

Jury Trial Demanded

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 10
3. While many violations are described below with specificity, this Complaint 

alleges violations of the statutes cited in their entirety.

4. Unless otherwise stated, all the conduct engaged in by Defendant took place 

in California.

5. Any violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional, and 

Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such 

specific violation.

6. All violations alleged regarding the FDCPA are material violations of the 

FDCPA as these violations would limit the ability of a hypothetical least 

sophisticated debtor to make an intelligent choice as to the alleged debt and 

actions that should be taken to resolve the alleged debt.

7. Through this complaint, Plaintiff does not allege that any state court judgment 

was entered against Plaintiff in error, and Plaintiff does not seek to reverse or 

modify any judgment of any state court.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Jurisdiction of this Court arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692(k), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for supplemental state claims.

9. This action arises out of Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and the Rosenthal Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788-1788.32 

(“Rosenthal Act”).

10. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of Redwood City, County 

of San Francisco, State of California. 

11. Plaintiff resides in San Francisco County, as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1391c(1), 

the judicial district in which this lawsuit is brought.

12. At the time of the substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 

claim occurred, particularly, Defendant harassing Plaintiff by telephone on 

Plaintiff’s personal phone and work phone, and disclosing Plaintiff’s debt to 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 2 of 10 -

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

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 10
third parties, Plaintiff was physically located in the City of Redwood City, 

County of San Francisco, State of California. 

13. Because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred in San Francisco County, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391b(2).

 PARTIES

14. At all times relevant, Defendant conducted business within the State of 

California.

15. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of Redwood City, State of 

California.

16. Defendant is located in the City of Stanton, in the State of California.

17. Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt, and is a 

consumer‚ as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

18. Defendant is a person who uses an instrumentality of interstate commerce or 

the mails in a business the principal purpose of which is the collection of 

debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a 

debt collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

19. Plaintiff is a natural person from whom a debt collector sought to collect a 

consumer debt which was due and owing or alleged to be due and owing from 

Plaintiff, and is a debtor as that term is defined by California Civil Code § 

1788.2(h).

20. Defendant, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself, 

herself, or others, engages in debt collection as that term is defined by 

California Civil Code § 1788.2(b), is therefore a debt collector as that term is 

defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(c).

21. This case involves money, property or their equivalent, due or owing or 

alleged to be due or owing from a natural person by reason of a consumer 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 3 of 10 -

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

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 10
credit transaction. As such, this action arises out of a consumer debt and 

“consumer credit” as those terms are defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(f).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

22. Sometime before August, 2016, Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred certain 

financial obligations with Cash Call related to an alleged personal loan.

23. These financial obligations were primarily for personal, family or household 

purposes and are therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 

§1692a(5).

24. These alleged obligations were money, property, or their equivalent, which is 

due or owing, or alleged to be due or owing, from a natural person to another 

person and are therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by California Civil 

Code §1788.2(d), and a “consumer debt” as that term is defined by California 

Civil Code §1788.2(f).

25. Sometime thereafter, but before August, 2016, Plaintiff allegedly fell behind 

in the payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt. As it is irrelevant to this 

action, Plaintiff currently takes no position as to the validity of this alleged 

debt.

26. Subsequently, but before August, 2016, the alleged debt was assigned, placed, 

or otherwise transferred, to Defendant for collection.

27. On or about August, 2016, Defendant began contacting Plaintiff’s relative, 

Davia Anaya, by telephone, and disclosed Plaintiff’s alleged debt with Davia 

Anaya.

28. By disclosing Plaintiff’s alleged debt with Plaintiff’s relatives, Defendant has 

caused Plaintiff significant stress and anxiety, as Plaintiff’s relatives have 

began to question Plaintiff’s actions and the reason by which Plaintiff has not 

paid her alleged debts. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 4 of 10 -

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

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 4 of 10
29. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s relative, Davia Anaya asked Defendant to stop 

contacting Davia Anaya directly regarding Plaintiff’s alleged debt, but 

Defendant continued to contact Davia Anaya multiple times by telephone.

30. On or about October, 2016, Defendant began contacting Plaintiff on her 

cellular phone and at her place of employment. Plaintiff believes Defendant 

contacted Plaintiff’s cell phone a dozen or more times in the month of 

October, 2016. Plaintiff further believes Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s place 

of employment a dozen or more times in the month of October, 2016. 

31. Plaintiff believes Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s cell phone a dozen or more 

times in the month of November, 2016. Plaintiff further believes Defendant 

contacted Plaintiff’s place of employment a dozen or more times in the month 

of November, 2016. 

32. On or about December 7, 2016, Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s ex-husband 

by telephone and disclosed Plaintiff’s alleged debt with Plaintiff’s exhusband. Defendant further informed Plaintiff’s ex-husband that Defendant 

was going to sue Plaintiff’s ex-husband for Plaintiff’s alleged debt. 

33. On or about December 7, 2016, Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s co-worker 

and disclosed Plaintiff’s alleged debt with Defendant’s co-worker.

34. On or about December 7, 2016, Defendant left Plaintiff a voicemail regarding 

the alleged debt. 

35. On or about December 9, 2016, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by telephone, at 

which time Plaintiff informed Defendant over the phone to cease contacting 

Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s place of employment and on her cell phone as it was 

inconvenient for Plaintiff to take calls at work. Despite Plaintiff informing 

Defendant over the phone to cease contacting Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s place of 

employment, Defendant continued to contact Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s place of 

employment and on her cell phone on numerous occasions. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 5 of 10 -

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

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 5 of 10
36. On or about December 9, 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s co-worker 

and disclosed Plaintiff’s alleged debt to Plaintiff’s co-worker. 

37. On or about December 9, 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s 

cell phone. Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was inconvenient for her to 

take phone calls on her cell phone or at her place of employment, and for 

Defendant to cease communications to Plaintiff’s cell phone and place of 

employment. 

38. On or about December 12, 2016, Defendant again called Plaintiff’s cell 

phone. During this conversation, Plaintiff again requested from Defendant to 

cease contacting Plaintiff on her cellular phone and at her place of 

employment as it was inconvenient for Plaintiff to take calls at her place of 

employment and that her employer did not allow her to take personal calls at 

work.

39. On or about December 12, 2016, Defendant left Plaintiff a voicemail 

regarding the alleged debt. 

40. On or about December 13, 2016, Defendant left Plaintiff a voicemail 

regarding the alleged debt. 

41. On or about December 15, 2016, Defendant left Plaintiff a voicemail 

regarding the alleged debt.

42. On or about December 16, 2016, Defendant left Plaintiff a voicemail 

regarding the alleged debt. 

43. On or about December 17, 2016, Defendant left Plaintiff a voicemail 

regarding the alleged debt. 

44. On or about December 22, 2016, Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s coworker at 

Plaintiff’s place of employment and harassed Plaintiff’s co-worker over the 

phone to such a degree that Plaintiff began to have a panic attack, and was 

forced to leave a meeting that she was in at the time to speak to Defendant, at 

which time Plaintiff again told Defendant to stop contacting Plaintiff at her 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 6 of 10 -

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

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 6 of 10
place of employment, all of which caused tremendous stress and anxiety for 

Plaintiff. 

45. On or about December 27, 2016, Defendant again contacted Plaintiff at 

Plaintiff’s place of employment and disclosed Plaintiff’s debt to Plaintiff’s 

receptionist. 

46. On or about December 27, 2016, Defendant again, for the second time that 

day, contacted Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s place of employment and disclosed 

Plaintiff’s debt to Plaintiff’s receptionist. 

47. On or about December 27, 2016, Defendant left Plaintiff a voicemail 

regarding the alleged debt. 

48. Furthermore, During the month of December, 2016, Defendant contacted 

multiple co-workers at Plaintiff’s place of employment, and disclosed 

Plaintiff’s alleged debt with Plaintiff’s co-workers. This illegal disclosure has 

negatively effected Plaintiff’s work environment, and Plaintiff now feels as 

though her job is in jeopardy due to Defendant’s illegal harassment and due to 

the fact that Plaintiff’s employer prohibits her from receiving such 

communications, which Plaintiff informed Defendant of on multiple 

occasions. 

49. Except as provided in 15 U.S.C. § 1692b, and without the prior consent of the 

consumer given directly to the Defendant, and without the express permission 

of a court of competent jurisdiction, and for a purpose not reasonably 

necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, Defendant 

communicated, in connection with the collection of a debt, with a person 

other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency, the 

creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of Defendant. 

Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b).

50. Defendant failed to disclose in this initial written communication with the 

consumer that Defendant was attempting to collect a debt and that any 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 7 of 10 -

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

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 7 of 10
information obtained would be used for that purpose, or failed to disclose in 

subsequent communications that the communication from a debt collector. 

Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11).

51. Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the Defendant or 

the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, Defendant 

communicated with the consumer in connection with the collection of a debt 

at the consumer’s place of employment when Defendant knew or had reason 

to know that the consumer’s employer prohibited the consumer from 

receiving such communication. Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692c(a)(3).

52. Because this violated certain portions of the federal Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act as these portions are incorporated by reference in the Rosenthal 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, through California Civil Code § 1788.17, 

this conduct or omission violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA)

15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 ET SEQ.

53. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, all other 

paragraphs.

54. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations 

of the FDCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the abovecited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

55. As a result of each and every violation of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to 

any actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in 

an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); and, 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) from 

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 8 of 10 -

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

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 8 of 10
COUNT II

ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (ROSENTHAL ACT)

CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1788-1788.32

56. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, all other 

paragraphs.

57. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations 

of the Rosenthal Act, including but not limited to each and every one of the 

above-cited provisions of the Rosenthal Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788-1788.32

58. As a result of each and every violation of the Rosenthal Act, Plaintiff is 

entitled to any actual damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(a); 

statutory damages for a knowing or willful violation in the amount up to 

$1,000.00 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(b); and reasonable attorney’s 

fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c) from Defendant.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant, and 

Plaintiff be awarded damages from Defendant, as follows:

• An award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1);

• An award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(2)(A);

• An award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3);

• An award of actual damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 

1788.30(a);

• An award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1788.30(b);

• An award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant 

to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 9 of 10 -

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

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 9 of 10
59. Pursuant to the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 

America, Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

 Hyde & Swigart

Date: January 5, 2017 By:s/Crosby S. Connolly

 Crosby S. Connolly

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 10 of 10 -

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

Case 4:17-cv-00076-JSW Document 1 Filed 01/06/17 Page 10 of 10