Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.
656 F.3d 877
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lyon disputed a $645 Resorts Advantage charge Chase misidentified and later added after a mistaken credit.
- Chase failed to respond with a written explanation or clarification and continued collection efforts.
- Chase reported Lyon as delinquent to credit agencies despite the dispute.
- District court dismissed the UDCPA claim and limited FCBA recovery to $1000; denied full fee recovery.
- Court held UDCPA claim viable on remand and FCBA damages/fees require further proceedings.
- Statutory framework: FCBA governs billing disputes; UDCPA proscribes abusive collection methods; district court’s rulings scrutinized on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UDCPA claim viability under state precedent | Lyon: UDCPA § 646.639(2)(k) violated by FCBA-enabled conduct | Chase: claim improperly premised on underlying debt and noncompliance wasn't actionable | UDCPA claim reinstated; remanded for further proceedings |
| Actual damages under FCBA require detrimental reliance? | Lyon: detrimental reliance not required for actual damages | Chase: detrimental reliance necessary for causation under FCBA | Detrimental reliance not required for actual damages under FCBA §§1666/1666a |
| Scope of statutory damages for multiple FCBA violations | Lyon: multiple FCBA violations yield multiple penalties | Chase: §1640(g) confines to single recovery for disclosures | Statutory damages not limited to a single penalty; remanded to determine number of violations |
| Attorney’s fees under FCBA | Lyon: award fees for all FCBA-related work; including appeal | Chase: fees improper if not specifically segregated | Remand to determine reasonable fees; allow fees for pre-trial FCBA work and related appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Isom v. Portland General Electric Co., 677 P.2d 59 (Or.App. 1983) (supports recovery under UDCPA when federal and state prohibitions overlap)
- Porter v. Hill, 838 P.2d 45 (Or. 1992) (UDCPA § 646.639(2)(k) proscribes collecting methods conflicting with law)
- St. Germain v. Bank of Hawaii, 573 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1977) (discusses single recovery for multiple disclosures under TILA §1640(g))
- Gold Country Lenders v. Smith, 289 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2002) (TILA damages require detrimental reliance; FCBA distinctions noted)
- In re Smith (Gold Country Lenders, cited therein), 289 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2002) (discusses causation/detrimental reliance under TILA vs FCBA distinctions)
- McDonald v. Checks-N-Advance, Inc. (In re Ferrell), 539 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2008) (applies TILA damages analysis to related context)