 (Violation of the Rosenthal FDCPA)   (Violation of the FDCPA)   18.   Sometime after April 4, 2016, Plaintiff received his first collection notice  dated April 4, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Validation Notice”) from Defendant,  attempting to collect a debt in the amount of $23,450.21.  The debt was allegedly  owed to LendingClub.  A copy of the Validation Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit  1, and is incorporated herein by reference.   19.  Defendant’s Validation Notice does not state that the $23,450.21 debt is  accruing interest, the interest rate interest at which the interest is accruing, or the  portion of the debt that is principal and the portion of the Debt that is accrued interest  or other fees. In fact, Defendant’s Validation Notice is completely devoid of any  language that would either confirm or deny the existence of acquiring interest.   20.  Upon information and belief, Defendant was charging daily accruing  interest on the debt.   21.   Upon information and belief, Defendant’s debt collection practice is  largely automated and utilizes standardized form letters or templates.  22.  Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf, and on behalf of all others  similarly situated.  42.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(1) because its Validation  Notice failed to clearly state the amount of the debt.  Defendant failed to clearly state  the amount of the debt because it failed to disclose that the debt was subject to daily  accruing interest.  It is well established that a debt collector, who attempts to collect  accruing interest on a debt, must use some type of safe harbor language informing the  debtor that the debt increases due to daily accruing interest.  See Akram v. California  Business Bureau Inc., 2016 WL 7029262 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016); Chuway v.  National Action Financial Services, Inc., 362 F.3d 944, 949 (7th Cir. 2004); Miller v.  McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, L.L.C., 214 F.3d 872, 876 (7th  Cir. 2000); Dragon v. I.C. System, Inc., 483 F.Supp.3d 198, 203 (D. Conn. 2007).  44.   Plaintiff re-alleges all paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.   45.   Any violation of the FDCPA is a violation of California Civil Code  section 1788.17, also known as the Rosenthal FDCPA, because section 1788.17  incorporates the FDCPA.   46.  Defendant violated Civil Code section 1788.17 because it violated 15  U.S.C. sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10), and 1692g(a)(1), as discussed  above.   47.  The Ninth Circuit in Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055,  1066 (9th Cir. 2011) has ruled that the Rosenthal FDCPA incorporates the FDCPA’s  class action damages provision in 15 U.S.C. section 1692k(a)(2)(B) via California  Civil Code section 1788.17.     48.  As a result of each and every violation of the Rosenthal FDCPA,  Plaintiff has suffered actual damages and harm resulting from Defendant’s actions as  heretofore alleged, including but not limited to worry, emotional distress, anxiety, and  humiliation, the exact amount of which is to be proven at trial.   49.  As a result of each and every violation of the Rosenthal FDCPA,  Plaintiff incurred additional actual damages including, but not limited to,  transportation and gasoline costs to the law firm, telephone call charges, copies,  postage, and other damages.    