form of a caller identification record. Suits have been brought against debt collectors who blocked their number or made a misleading name appear in a caller ID window. The propriety of blocking or otherwise preventing disclosure of caller identity is unsettled. See Jiminez v. Accounts Receivable Mgmt., Inc., No. CV 09-9070, 2010 WL 5829206, at *6 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 15, 2010) (“[I]t is not impossible to imagine some scenario in which a debt collector’s hanging up without leaving any identifying information might entail a violation of the statute [referring to the identification requirement] (for example, if the debt collector used some form of caller identification blocking device).”); but see, Glover v. Client Servs., Inc., No. 07-cv-81, 2007 WL 2902209, at *3-4 (W.D.Mich. Oct. 2, 2007) (<HOLDING>). In a case arising in this district, liability
holding that it is not a deceptive practice under the fdcpa for a debt collector to have unavailable appear in a caller id window instead of its telephone number holding that debt collector violated fdcpa when it held debtor liable for court costs that had not yet been awarded holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa holding that rawlings  a codefendant in the present action  is not a debt collector within the meaning of the fdcpa