California Court Recommends Dismissal of Three TCPA Claims Against Debt Collector

Case Snapshot

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
• Case: Rios v. Credence Resource Management LLC, No. 2:26-cv-01801-DAD-CSK (PS)
• Decision Date: Oct. 22, 2026
• Core Issue: Whether allegations concerning automated dialing, prerecorded voice messages, and calls to a number on the National Do Not Call Registry sufficiently stated TCPA claims.
• Key Allegation: Credence allegedly placed four automated calls to a consumer’s cellphone without the required consent.
• Court Holding: The magistrate judge found insufficient allegations supporting ATDS use, the absence of required consent for prerecorded calls or telephone solicitation under Do Not Call Registry regulations.
• Outcome: Recommended dismissal of all three claims, with leave to amend the prerecorded voice and Do Not Call Registry claims but not the ATDS claim. District judge review remains pending.
• Notable Detail: The magistrate judge found that the plaintiff’s characterization of the calls as specifically targeted undermined his ATDS theory.

A federal magistrate judge in California has recommended dismissing three Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims against Credence Resource Management LLC, finding that a consumer failed to sufficiently allege violations involving automated dialing, prerecorded messages and the National Do Not Call Registry.

In Rios v. Credence Resource Management LLC, U.S. Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim of the Eastern District of California issued findings and recommendations Oct. 22, concluding that the plaintiff’s allegations lacked sufficient factual support. The recommendations distinguish between TCPA requirements for debt collection communications and those governing telemarketing calls.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) claim without leave to amend while allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to correct deficiencies in his two remaining claims. A district judge must still review the recommendations before they become effective.

Consumer Challenges Four Alleged Collection Calls

Plaintiff Jesus Rios alleged that Credence placed four calls to his cellphone between March 25 and April 3, 2026, using an ATDS and an artificial or prerecorded voice without his consent.

According to the complaint, each call began with a prerecorded announcement that the conversation would be recorded before connecting to a live representative who addressed Rios by his full name.

Rios also alleged that his number had been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since September 2023 and that he had no account, debt, contract, or business relationship with Credence.

Credence moved to dismiss all three TCPA claims for failure to state a claim. Rios, who represented himself, did not respond to the motion despite receiving an additional opportunity to do so.

Court Finds Automated Dialing Allegations Insufficient

The magistrate judge determined that Rios failed to provide facts supporting a reasonable inference that Credence used an ATDS.

Under the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, equipment must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce telephone numbers to qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA.

Rios alleged that Credence used automated dialing equipment but provided no supporting facts regarding the equipment’s number-generation capabilities.

The court also found that his description of the calls undermined his claim. Rios specifically characterized the calls as deliberate and targeted, noting that company representatives addressed him by name.

The magistrate judge concluded that these allegations indicated the calls were directed at Rios rather than generated randomly or sequentially.

Because the court found that additional allegations could not resolve this inconsistency, it recommended dismissing the ATDS claim without leave to amend.

Prerecorded Voice Claim May Be Amended

The magistrate judge separately considered Rios’ allegation that Credence violated the TCPA by using prerecorded messages without obtaining prior express written consent.

Citing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Loyhayem v. Fraser Financial & Insurance Services Inc., the court explained that written consent is not necessarily required for artificial or prerecorded voice calls that do not involve advertising or telemarketing.

For covered nonmarketing calls, prior express oral consent may be sufficient.

Although Rios alleged that he had never provided written consent, he did not specifically address whether he had provided oral consent.

The magistrate judge therefore recommended dismissing the prerecorded voice claim with leave to amend, finding that Rios might be able to correct the deficiency by providing additional facts concerning consent.

Debt Collection Calls Distinguished From Telephone Solicitations

The court also recommended dismissing Rios’ claim involving the National Do Not Call Registry.

Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), the registry’s restrictions apply to telephone solicitations, generally defined as communications encouraging the purchase, rental, or investment in goods, property, or services.

The magistrate judge explained that calls made solely for debt collection purposes are not considered telephone solicitations under the Federal Communications Commission’s regulations.

Although Rios identified Credence as a debt collection company, he did not allege the actual purpose of the calls or provide facts indicating they involved marketing or solicitation.

The court found that his registration on the Do Not Call Registry, standing alone, was insufficient to establish a violation.

However, the magistrate judge recommended allowing Rios to amend the claim if he could provide additional allegations demonstrating that the communications qualified as telephone solicitations.