Shyriaa Henderson v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc.
918 F.3d 1068
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- Henderson obtained FFELP student loans that USA Funds guaranteed and later owned after default; Navient serviced the loans and subcontracted debt collectors to handle collections.
- Henderson received repeated prerecorded/autodialed calls to a phone number she had not provided or consented to be called on; she alleges collectors used skip-tracing plus autodialers.
- USA Funds did not hire or contract directly with the debt collectors; it contracted with Navient, reviewed Navient reports, received periodic audits of collectors, and could request replacement of underperforming collectors but not directly fire them.
- USA Funds’ audits (2000, 2009, 2010) flagged “improper collection practices” (not explicitly TCPA compliance) and recommended corrective action; USA Funds did not terminate Navient or halt use of the same collectors.
- Henderson sued USA Funds under the TCPA; the district court granted summary judgment for USA Funds; the Ninth Circuit majority reversed and remanded, finding triable issues on agency/ratification theory; Judge Bybee dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCC orders create per se vicarious TCPA liability for creditors | Henderson: the 2008 FCC declaration treats third-party collector calls as if the creditor placed them, creating per se liability | USA Funds: FCC guidance requires agency analysis; no automatic attribution | Court: No per se liability; agency analysis under federal common law required |
| Whether USA Funds ratified collectors’ alleged TCPA violations | Henderson: USA Funds knew (or willfully ignored) collectors’ calling practices, accepted benefits (payments), and acquiesced — creating ratification and agency | USA Funds: audits show it investigated and directed corrective action via Navient; it lacked direct control or authority over collectors | Court: Reversed summary judgment — reasonable jury could find ratification (actual knowledge or willful ignorance) based on audits, reports, and continued acceptance of benefits |
| Whether collectors had implied actual authority from USA Funds to place unlawful calls | Henderson: collectors reasonably believed they had authority to act for USA Funds based on its manifestations and structure | USA Funds: no evidence collectors reasonably believed USA Funds authorized TCPA-violative conduct; Navient controlled them and would discipline or remove violators | Court: Majority did not decide implied actual authority because ratification alone presented triable issues; dissent would reject implied-authority theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirmed that vicarious TCPA liability requires agency under federal common law)
- Kristensen v. Credit Payment Servs., Inc., 879 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussed limits of ratification creating agency where alleged agent did not purport to act as principal’s agent)
- Hodgin v. UTC, 885 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2018) (ratification in TCPA context where manufacturers terminated relationships after complaints)
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency interpretations)
- Mavrix Photographs, LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc., 873 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017) (adopts Restatement (Third) of Agency principles for federal common-law agency analysis)