Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Ramos v. Capital One, N.A.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division

July 27, 2017, Decided; July 27, 2017, Filed

Case No. 17-cv-00435-BLF

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS

[Re: ECF 7, 23]

Plaintiff Jose Antonio Ramos ("Ramos") brings this suit against Defendants HSBC and Caiptal One, former employers of his wife, for allegedly recording personal phone calls between him and his wife on the company phone. Before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss Ramos' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). HSBC Mot., ECF 7; Cap. Mot., ECF 23. After reviewing the parties briefing, the Court [*2]  hereby rules on the motions as follows.

I. BACKGROUND

Ramos alleges the following facts in his first amended complaint ("FAC"). Notice of Removal 29 et seq., First Am. Compl., ECF 1. Plaintiff Ramos is a California resident whose wife was employed by Defendants HSBC Card Services Inc. ("Card Services") and HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. (collectively, "HSBC") at a facility in Salinas, California, from March 2009 to May 2012. FAC ¶¶ 7, 28. As of May 1, 2012, Defendant Capital One Financial Corporation ("Capital One") acquired certain assets of HSBC, including the Salinas facility. Ramos' wife ceased working for Card Services and thereafter was employed by Capital One from May 1, 2012 through October 2013. Id. ¶¶ 28-29.

During the relevant time period, Ramos had "numerous personal telephone communications" with Defendants' employees, including his wife. Id. ¶¶ 30-31. According to Ramos, Defendants intentionally recorded, intercepted, or received the conversations without his consent or knowledge. Id. ¶¶ 28-39. Defendants also required their employees to keep their "policies, procedures, and internal activities confidential and prohibited employees from disclosing such information." [*3]  Id. ¶ 29. Ramos alleges that at the time he had no reason to believe that his personal telephone calls were being recorded. Id. ¶¶ 17, 19.

On August 28, 2015, a plaintiff filed a case in San Diego Superior Court, alleging similar claims and the same causes of actions against Defendants as those here. Id. ¶ 13 (citing Ron Kempton, et al. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., No. 37-2014-00023795-CU-MC-NC (Cal. Super. Ct.) sub nom. Dalia Rojas v. HSBC Card Services Inc., et al., No. D071442 (Cal. App. Ct. filed Nov. 18, 2016) (the "Rojas case")). On September 28, 2015, HSBC agreed to withdraw the confidential designation for the recordings produced in the Rojas case. Id. ¶ 14. Thereafter, only after the confidential designation was withdrawn and after Ramos' wife was contacted as a potential witness in the Rojas case did Ramos learn about the recording of his conversations by HSBC. Id. ¶¶ 15-16.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118162 *

JOSE ANTONIO RAMOS, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., et al., Defendants.

Subsequent History: Appeal dismissed by, Motion denied by, As moot Ramos v. Capital One, N.A., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24479 (9th Cir. Cal., Nov. 14, 2017)

Prior History: Ramos v. Capital One, N.A., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32368 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2017)

CORE TERMS

statutory damages, per violation, recording, motion to dismiss, exhibits, allegations, judicial notice, conversations, parties, damages, notice, legislative history, Removal, documents, sur-reply, clarify, interception, discovery, confidential communication, amount of actual damages, amended complaint, violations, telephone, requests, phone, jurisdictional amount, leave to amend, actual damage, actual injury, retroactivity