Moritz v. Daniel N. Gordon, P.C.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129223
W.D. Wash.2012Background
- Moritz’s debt to CACV was pursued by Daniel N. Gordon, PC (DNG) beginning with a 2006 Whatcom County filing identifying DNG as debt collectors.
- A Whatcom County default judgment was entered against Moritz in January 2007 for roughly $3,979.12 plus 12% interest.
- DNG later issued garnishments and communications, including attempts to garnish Moritz’s employment at Talasaea and multiple payment-plan negotiations.
- Moritz disputed the debt in January 2011 under the FDCPA, asserting it violated the Act; DNG continued collection efforts thereafter.
- Moritz filed suit in June 2011 asserting FDCPA and Washington CPA claims; the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA §1692d(6) meaningful disclosure in voicemails | Moritz argues voicemails lacked meaningful disclosure of debt-collection purpose. | DNG contends its voicemails satisfied the disclosure requirement. | Genuine facts exist; disclosure issue remains; summary judgment denied on this issue. |
| FDCPA §1692e(ll) disclosure in initial/subsequent communications | Moritz alleges voicemails failed to disclose debt-collection status. | DNG argues disclosures complied or other cases support no per se violation. | Disputed facts on disclosure; summary judgment denied on this issue. |
| FDCPA §1692f unlicensed collection as unconscionable means | Moritz claims Washington licensing violations render collection unconscionable under §1692f. | DNG argues state-law licensing violations do not per se violate the FDCPA and relies on Wade. | No per se FDCPA violation; court grants summary judgment for DNG on this issue. |
| Individual liability of Gordon under the FDCPA | Moritz contends Gordon’s involvement makes him personally liable as a debt collector. | Gordon argues lack of involvement; personal liability inappropriate absent proof of participation. | Gordon granted summary judgment; no evidence of his individual liability shown. |
| Washington CPA claim—unlicensed out-of-state collection agency | Moritz asserts DNG violated RCW 19.16.110 as an unlicensed out-of-state collection agency; plus related provisions. | DNG argues exclusion for lawyers and other statutory interpretations negate CPA liability; Wade guidance applied. | DNG acted as an unlicensed out-of-state collection agency; RCW 19.16.110 violation established; other CPA elements considered with partial denial of some parts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. Regional Credit Association, 87 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 1996) (unlicensed state-law violations not per se FDCPA violations; analyze substantive FDCPA violations)
- Mason v. Mortgage Am., Inc., 792 P.2d 142 (Wash. 1990) (loss of property or similar injury may support CPA damages even without full monetary loss)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1986) (elements of CPA claim; public interest and causation considerations)
- Dunlap v. Credit Protection Ass’n, L.P., 419 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2005) (FDCPA claims; criteria for individual liability and interpretation of sections)
- Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 170 P.3d 10 (Wash. 2007) (CPA element guidance and public-interest considerations in washington background)