Paris v. Steinberg & Steinberg
828 F. Supp. 2d 1212
W.D. Wash.2011Background
- Paris sues Steinberg, Steinberg & Steinberg, Woolwine, and ACF for FDCPA, WCAA, and WCPA violations.
- Plaintiff alleges a December 21, 2010 initial communication letter violated FDCPA requirements and seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A)-(B).
- ACF purchased Paris’s Capitol One debt; prior communications in 2009-2010 complied with some FDCPA requirements, but the December 21, 2010 letter is contested as initial communication.
- Defendants move to dismiss; Steinberg seeks dismissal and/or join with others; Steinberg also moves for summary judgment; protective order and counsel withdrawal motions are involved.
- Court’s order: partially grants/denies motions, dismisses WCAA and WCPA claims with leave to amend, grants summary judgment on FDCPA claim (initial communication issue resolved in defendants’ favor), grants plaintiff withdrawal of counsel, takes judicial notice of a state case, and allows leave to amend the complaint.
- Court later engages in standard governing summary judgment and discusses discovery, with the conclusion dismissing all claims except the FDCPA claim ultimately resolved by summary judgment in defendants’ favor; protective order denied as moot; several pro hac vice applications denied or conditioned.
- The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 21, 2010 letter was the initial FDCPA communication | Paris argues the letter was the initial communication that triggered § 1692g(a) | Defendants contend the letter was not the initial communication, so § 1692g(a) does not apply | Yes, not the initial communication; summary judgment for defendants on FDCPA claim |
| Whether Paris pleads cognizable CPA damages | Paris seeks actual damages and restitution under RCW 19.86 | No pleaded actual damages; CPA requires injury | CPA claim dismissed with leave to amend |
| Whether Paris has a private right of action under WCAA | WCAA creates private liability for unlicensed collection activities | WCAA does not provide a separate private right of action from the CPA | WCAA claim dismissed with leave to amend |
| Whether Steinberg qualifies for WCAA exemption as a lawyer | Lawyers collecting on third-party debt may be exempt | Steinberg may or may not be exempt; factual record required | WCAA exemption does not bar dismissal on this motion; claims dismissed on other grounds; Steinberg’s motion denied on exemption grounds; see opinion for details |
| Whether the FDCPA claim survives against Woolwine personally | Woolwine, as COO, is personally liable for FDCPA violations | Personal liability contested; in-house staff limits involvement | FDCPA claim survives the pleading stage (summary judgment later resolves to grant) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards require plausible claims not bare recitals)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading; not mere conclusory statements)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1986) (elements of CPA claim including public interest impact)
- McNall v. Credit Bureau of Josephine Cty., 689 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Or. 2010) (subsequent debt collectors need not provide additional initial validation notices)
- Senftle v. Landau, 390 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D. Md. 2005) (only one initial communication is required for § 1692g(a))
- Trust Fund Services v. Aro Glass Co., 89 Wash.2d 758, 575 P.2d 716 (Wash. 1978) (statutory exemption for certain law firm activities under WCAA)