44 F. Supp. 3d 959
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff James Forkum, a consumer, sues debt collector Co-Operative Adjustment Bureau, Inc. under the FDCPA and RFDCPA.
- Defendant placed calls in December 2012 to collect a debt; voicemail left by Woodruff did not identify himself as a debt collector.
- Plaintiff filed suit on February 21, 2013; amended complaint filed May 29, 2013.
- Plaintiff moves for summary judgment; Defendant opposes; court considers without oral argument.
- Court treats FDCPA as remedial and liberally construed in favor of consumers; issue centers on identification in communications.
- Court grants summary judgment for liability on certain FDCPA/RFDCPA theories and orders briefing on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to identify as debt collector violates FDCPA §1692e(ll) | Forkum argues Woodruff’s voicemail violated §1692e(ll). | Woodruff allegedly did not identify himself, but the matter is insufficient to show violation as a matter of law. | Yes; violation of §1692e(ll) established; summary judgment for plaintiff on this theory. |
| Whether violation of §1692e(ll) supports §1692e(10) liability | Unknown, but argues §1692e(10) could be implicated by deceptive means. | No controlling authority showing §1692e(10) is satisfied by this fact pattern. | No; summary judgment on §1692e(10) claim rejected. |
| Whether RFDCPA claim rises with FDCPA violation | RFDCPA mirrors FDCPA remedies; success on FDCPA yields RFDCPA relief. | Defendant disputes liability under state statute. | Yes; RFDCPA claim granted to mirror FDCPA liability finding. |
| Whether bona fide error defense shields defendant | No evidence of reasonable procedures to avoid errors; defense unsatisfied. | Defendant bears burden to prove bona fide error defense with procedures. | Yes; defense granted due to absence of evidence supporting the defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Services, Inc., 460 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2006) (FDCPA remedial statute; liberal construction for consumer)
- Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010) (FDCPA remedial purpose; strict liability concepts)
- Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Servs., Inc., 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (1692e(10) and debtor-communications analysis; least sophisticated debtor standard)
- Reichert v. National Credit Systems, Inc., 531 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2008) (bona fide error defense framed; burden on debt collector)
- Costa v. Nat’l Action Financial Servs., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (remedies under FDCPA and relation to RFDCPA)
- Schwarm v. Craighead, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (analysis of §1692e(11) and post-initial communications disclosures)