Warner v. Ray Klein, Inc.
3:17-cv-01301
| D. Or. | Apr 18, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs Dortha and Gilbert Warner sued Ray Klein, Inc. under the FDCPA, alleging the collector failed to disclose the identity of the current creditor in a January 23, 2017 letter.
- The letter, on defendant letterhead, stated the account had been referred for collection and included a table listing only an “Original Creditor” (Portland Water Bureau) with account numbers and amount due.
- The letter also contained the FDCPA 30-day dispute language and a line offering original creditor information upon written request.
- Plaintiffs did not respond; defendant later sued in small claims court and the parties settled with plaintiffs paying the debt. Plaintiffs filed this FDCPA action before payment.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the core legal question was whether the letter effectively disclosed the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed under 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the letter effectively disclosed the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed under §1692g(a)(2) | The letter lists only an “Original Creditor” and says account was referred, so it fails to identify the current creditor | The letter names only Portland Water Bureau as the sole creditor in the body, appears on debt collector letterhead, and warns it is an attempt to collect a debt — so a least-sophisticated debtor would understand Portland Water Bureau is the creditor owed | Court held the letter sufficiently and effectively disclosed the creditor; no FDCPA violation as alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Serv., 869 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1988) (initial-notice must be effectively conveyed to debtor)
- Baker v. G.C. Servs. Corp., 677 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1982) (adopted least-sophisticated-debtor standard)
- Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (clarifies limits of least-sophisticated-debtor; preserves basic reasonableness)
- Janetos v. Fulton, Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 825 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2016) (addressed creditor-identification issues in FDCPA notices)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Wahl v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 556 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2009) (description of least-sophisticated-debtor standard)