Vasquez v. SoFi Lending Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-01228

Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF) — Vasquez v. SoFi Lending Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-01228

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following is taken verbatim from the complaint filed in federal court. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.

The Parties

15. Plaintiff is, and was at all times mentioned herein, a natural person residing in the County of San Diego, in the State of California.
16. 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 therefore Plaintiff is a “debtor” as that term is describe by Cal Civ. Code §1788.2(h).
17. Defendant SOFI is a California Corporation with its primary business address in San Francisco, CA, and doing business throughout the country, including this District.
18. Defendant SOFI regularly attempts to collect using mails, electronic communication, and telephone, “consumer debts” allegedly owed to it, as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code §1788.2(f).
19. Defendant is, and all times mentioned herein, was a corporation and a “person,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).
20. When individuals owe SOFI debts for regular monthly payments on consumer loans, and other similar obligations, SOFI collects on those consumer debts owed to it using the mail, electronic communications, and the via the telephone. For example, when its customers are delinquent on their debts owed to SOFI, as part of its routine business SOFI calls those clients, sends them collection messages, letters by mail, and emails all seeking payment on the delinquent debt. Therefore, SOFI is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code §1788.2(c) and engages in “debt collection” as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code §1788.2(b).
21. Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17 states that every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provisions of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, sections 1692b to 1692j, inclusive of, and shall be subject to the remedies in Section 1692k of Title 15 of the United States Code.
22. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant used, controlled and or operated a telephone system that was designed to place multiple calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an artificial voice and/or prerecorded voice message (“Recorded Voice”) as that term is defined in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
23. Defendant is, and all times mentioned herein, was a corporation and “person,” as that term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).
24. 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 credit transaction.” Thus, 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

25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
26. On or about September of 2024, Defendant issued Plaintiff an unsecured personal loan (“SOFI Loan”). The SOFI Loan was taken out for, and used for, personal and household expenses.
27. Plaintiff made payments toward his SOFI Loan when he took it out and continued making regular monthly payments and maintained good standing on his SOFI Loan until approximately December of 2024, when unfortunately, Plaintiff fell on financial hardship and was unable to maintain the regular monthly payments.
28. Upon going into default on his SOFI Loan, agents for SOFI called Plaintiff multiple times and requested payment using a Recorded Voice, often as many as twice per day, sometimes every day.
29. The collection calls were made to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.
30. Plaintiff sought out and retained an attorney to represent him with regards to the loan allegedly owed to SOFI.
31. On January 14, 2025, an associate attorney at BLC Law Center, APC drafted and submitted for mailing a Cease-and-Desist letter, whereby Plaintiff’s Attorney stated in writing that Plaintiff was revoking consent to call him via the use of a Recorded Voice, that Plaintiff had retained Counsel, and that SOFI needed to cease calling Plaintiff pursuant to the RFDCPA (“Letter”). The Letter referenced the last four digits of Plaintiff’s social security number next to his name to help SOFI identify the Plaintiff’s account.
32. The Letter informed SOFI that Plaintiff was represented by Counsel and thus constituted written notice pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788.14(c) that Plaintiff was represented by an attorney with respect to any and all debts allegedly owed to or serviced by Defendant, and request was thereby made that all communications regarding this alleged consumer debt must be directed exclusively to Plaintiff’s attorney, and the Letter clearly revoked any prior consent to contact Plaintiff via the use of an automated dialing system, text, or other method, including but not limited to calls with a pre-recorded or automated voice messages.
33. The January 14, 2025, Letter was sent via Docsmit. Docsmit is a third-party company with no relation to Plaintiff or herhis Counsel. Docsmit’s sole business is the sending of mail on behalf of customers. Docsmit provides a certificate of mailing and identifies the exact time a letter was sent.
34. Docsmit sent the January 14, 2025, Letter to the following address: SoFi, 234 1st St, San Francisco, CA 94105
35. Docsmit included with the letter the following attestation of mailing: “The information herein is certified by Docsmit.com, Inc. (“Docsmit”) to be true and accurate as of the date and time this report was generated. All of the records relating to this communication were made at times proximate to those indicated. Docsmit has not permitted any of the parties hereto to modify the records.”
36. The address the January 14, 2025, Letter was sent to is the address for correspondences for loan accounts identified on SOFI’s website as well as the address registered with the CA Secretary of State: Website — Address and Contact: 234 1st St, San Francisco, CA 94105. CA Secretary of State: 234 FIRST STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105.
37. SOFI received the January 14, 2025, Letter.
38. However, despite receipt of the January 14, 2025, Letter referenced above which states that Plaintiff had revoked consent to be called via a Recorded Voice and had retained counsel regarding the subject debts, representatives of SOFI have continued to call Plaintiff more than seventy (70) since January 14, 2025, on his cellular telephone via the use of Pre-Recorded Voice messages.
39. Plaintiff alleges that SOFI called Plaintiff in excess of seventy (70) total, more than 2-3 times in a single day, and often more than seven (7) times per week, based on his recollection of the frequency of calls, as well as the records of calls that he has in his possession.
40. SOFI, or its agents or representatives, have contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone over seventy (70) since January 14, 2025, including using an artificial and/or recorded voice.
41. SOFI called Plaintiff from numbers identified on Caller ID as: (415) 854-2341, among others.
42. On a number of occasions, Plaintiff answered the phone and spoke to agents who stated they were calling regarding his outstanding SOFI Loan and informed Plaintiff he was delinquent on the SOFI Loan and immediate payment was requested.
43. Additionally, sometimes Plaintiff answered calls from Defendant and there was a delay before the line made a sound, indicative of the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice by SOFI.
44. Furthermore, on a number of occasions, Plaintiff received calls from SOFI and when he answered there was no one present on the line at first, indicative of the use of an automated and/or prerecorded telephone system.
45. Sometimes when Plaintiff did not answer a call from SOFI, Plaintiff then received multiple calls in rapid succession from SOFI, indicative of the use of a computerized phone system.
46. Plaintiff recalls answering some of the calls from SOFI and after a brief period of no response, an automated voice came on the line and began delivering what seemed to be a scripted message. On those occasions, Plaintiff subsequently terminated the call.
47. According to Plaintiff’s recollection, the multiple calls contained an automated robotic type voice and were identical to the previously scripted calls, which is indicative of a prerecorded voice message using what appeared to be a computerized automated voice used in an attempt to collect upon the subject debt.
48. Thus, some of the Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff after receiving the letter contained an “artificial or prerecorded voice” as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
49. The multiple calls made by Defendant or its agents after January 14, 2025, were therefore made in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).
50. Despite receipt of Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Letter sent to Defendant’s mailing address, instructing Defendant to cease calling Plaintiff’s cellular telephone via the use of a Recorded Voice, which provided irrefutable notice that Plaintiff had revoked consent to call his cellular telephone by any means and that he had retained Counsel regarding these alleged debts, Defendant SOFI continues to contact Plaintiff repeatedly to date.

Claims for Relief

COUNT I — Violations of California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (California Civil Code § 1788.14(c))

51. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
52. When Plaintiff’s Counsel sent the January 14, 2025, cease-and-desist Letter to SOFI, Defendant SOFI was aware, or reasonably should have been aware, that Plaintiff was represented by an attorney.
53. Cal. Civ. Code §1788.14(c) provides in relevant part, No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect a consumer debt by means of the following practices: (c) Initiating communications, other than statements of account, with the debtor with regard to the consumer debt, when the debt collector has been previously notified in writing by the debtor’s attorney that the debtor is represented by such attorney with respect to the consumer debt and such notice includes the attorney’s name and address and a request by such attorney that all communications regarding the consumer debt be addressed to such attorney, unless the attorney fails to answer correspondence, return telephone calls, or discuss the obligation in question. This subdivision shall not apply where prior approval has been obtained from the debtor’s attorney, or where the communication is a response in the ordinary course of business to a debtor’s inquiry.
54. By calling Plaintiff on his cellular phone over seventy (70) after receipt of the January 14, 2025, Letter from Plaintiff’s Counsel, SOFI violated Cal. Civ. Code §1788.14(c).
55. As a result of the constant collection calls by SOFI, Plaintiff has experienced stress and irritability, as the constant and harassing collection calls by SOFI were overwhelming. Therefore, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of Defendant’s violations of Cal. Civ. Code §1788.14(c).
56. Further, as stated previous, Cal. Civ. C. § 1788.17 incorporates the FDCPA into the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, therefore if an individual violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692(d), they in turn violate the RFDCPA.
57. 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) provides in pertinent part, A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number
58. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Regulation F, which provides a ruling on § 1692(d) states the following: …a debt collector is presumed to violate this prohibition if the debt collector places telephone calls to a person in connection with the collection of a particular debt more than seven times within a seven-day period…
59. Therefore, Defendant’s acts of calling Plaintiff over seventy (70), multiple times per day, often in excess of seven (7) times per week, was a separate violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5), which is incoporated into the RFDCPA via Cal. Civ. C. § 1788.17.

COUNT II — Negligent and/or Willful Violations of the TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.)

60. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
61. Through the January 14, 2025, Letter sent by Plaintiff’s Counsel, Plaintiff revoked any alleged consent for SOFI or its agents or representatives to call Plaintiff on his cellular telephone via the use of an artificial and/or prerecorded voice.
62. The foregoing acts and omissions of SOFI constitute numerous and multiple negligent and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to every one of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.
63. To properly plead a TCPA claim under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), Plaintiff must merely allege the following elements: (1) a defendant called their cellular or residential phone numbers, (2) using an ATDS or artificial or pre-recorded voice, (3) without their prior express consent. See Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 707 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). To plead these elements as required will obviously include overlap with the very statute that a Plaintiff alleges was violated. See Vaccaro v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 13-CV-174 – IEG (RBB), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99991, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2013) (“It does not follow that factual allegations that borrow or echo statutory language are necessarily legal conclusions. Factual allegations do not cease to be factual even if they quote a statute’s language.”)
64. Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegations above regarding Defendant’s conduct have satisfied all of the aforementioned requisite elements for a TCPA claim, thus Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).
65. As a result of SOFI’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. §227, et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages, for each violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).
66. As a result of SOFI’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. §227, et seq., the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $1,500 in statutory damages for every one of SOFI’s knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).
67. Plaintiff is also entitled to and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A).

Remedies Sought

• As to the First Cause of Action, an award of actual damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1788.30(a) according to proof.
• As to the First Cause of Action, an award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1788.30(b).
• As to the First Cause of Action, an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1788.30(c).
• As to the Second Cause of Action, $500 in statutory damages for each and every one of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1); and $1,500.00 in statutory damages for each and every one of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C);
• As to the Second Cause of Action, injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A);
• For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has SoFi Lending Corp. been found liable in this case?

No. This is a complaint — a legal filing containing allegations made by the plaintiff. SoFi Lending Corp. has not been found liable for any wrongdoing in this proceeding. Courts require evidence and proof before entering a judgment against any party.

What does the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) say about contacting a represented debtor?

California Civil Code § 1788.14(c) prohibits a debt collector from initiating communications with a debtor — other than statements of account — when the debt collector has been previously notified in writing that the debtor is represented by an attorney with respect to the consumer debt, and that notice includes the attorney’s name, address, and a request that all communications be addressed to the attorney. Exceptions exist only if the attorney fails to answer correspondence, return calls, or discuss the obligation.

What statutory damages does the TCPA provide for prerecorded calls?

Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), a person who receives a call made in violation of the TCPA’s prerecorded voice restrictions may recover $500 per violation for negligent violations. If the violation was knowing or willful, the court may award up to $1,500 per violation. The statute also permits injunctive relief.

What is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s standard for harassing telephone calls?

CFPB Regulation F, which provides guidance on 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, creates a presumption that a debt collector violates the prohibition on harassment if the debt collector places telephone calls to a person in connection with the collection of a particular debt more than seven times within a seven-day period, or within seven days after engaging in a telephone conversation with the person about the debt.

Source: CourtListener — Vasquez v. SoFi Lending Corp., Docket 72334313. Information on this page is taken from the court complaint filed February 25, 2026. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.