Case Summary

5019 Where plaintiffs alleged that defendant bank repeatedly called them about their debt even after being informed that they were represented by counsel and called plaintiffs' daughter to discuss their debt, plaintiffs stated a cause of action for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress but not negligent infliction of emotional distress or libel. The allegation that one plaintiff fell while rushing to answer a call was insufficient to plead negligence, and violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act were not torts in se because the Act provides a statutory remedy.

CHACONAS v JP MORGAN CHASE BANK (Too Many Phone Calls) 713 FSupp2d 1180 (S.D. Cal) [See Fausto v Credigy Servs Corp, 598 FSupp2d 1049 (N.D. Cal); Hughes v Pair 46 C4 1035, T/AT 08/2009]