United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Decided May 21, 2014.
For James Fokum, Plaintiff: Ryan Scott Lee, LEAD ATTORNEY, Matthew A Rosenthal, Rory Colin Leisinger, Krohn and Moss, Ltd., Los Angeles, CA.
For Co-Operative Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Defendant: Ralph L. Pollard, LEAD ATTORNEY, Attorney at Law, Concord, CA.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff James Forkum (" Plaintiff" ) brings the instant action against Defendant
CoOperative Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (" Defendant" ) alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA" ), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" RFDCPA" ), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq. See Dkt. 16. The parties are presently before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 33. Defendant opposes the motion. Dkt. 34. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, for the reasons stated below. The Court, in its discretion, finds these matters suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
The Court finds the following facts undisputed. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by the FDCPA and was the object of a collection activity arising from a consumer debt. Defendant is a " debt collector" as defined by the FDCPA. In or around December 2012, Defendant's representative, George Woodruff (" Woodruff" ), placed several telephone calls to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a consumer debt. Plaintiff spoke with Woodruff about his consumer debt prior to Woodruff leaving the following voicemail message:
Yeah, Mr. Forkum this is George Woodruff at CO-Operative. Uh, you know you called me Friday, I think I left you a message on Saturday, but uh, anyway, uh, give me a buzz, my number is 800-331-0009, my extension is 108. Thanks.
On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff commenced the instant action alleging claims under the FDCPA and the RFDCPA predicated on Woodruff's failure to identify himself as a debt collector in the above voicemail message. Compl., Dkt. 1. A first amended complaint was filed on May 29, 2013. Dkt. 16. On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 33. On April 21, 2014, Defendant filed an opposition. Dkt. 34. A reply was filed on April 28, 2014. Dkt. 35.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
" A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense . . . on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
The moving party's burden on summary judgment depends on whether it bears the burden of proof at trial with respect to the claim or defense at issue. When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. See C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.,213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000). In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of fact on each issue material to its case. Id. However, when the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can meet ...