Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Powers v. Capital Management Services, L.P.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

August 2, 2017

DIANE POWERS Plaintiff,
v.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Michael J. McShane United States District Judge.

         Ms. Powers alleges that Defendant violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) in two ways: by failing to disclose whether interest was or was not accruing on the balance of the debt, in violation of § 1692g(a); and by misrepresenting the account number for the debt as having only 4 digits, in violation of § 1692e(10). Compl. ¶s 9 & 10, ECF No. 1. Defendant moves for summary judgment on both claims.

         Because a debt collector is not required to disclose that interest is not accruing on an account and because defendant did not make a false representation, both claims fail as a matter of law. Defendant's motion for summary is granted. Complaint is dismissed.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Defendant Capital Management Services, L.P. is a “debt collector” subject to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (“FDCPA”) 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. In September 2016, U.S. Bank placed a delinquent account owed by plaintiff with Capital Management for collection. Robinson Decl. ¶2, ECF No. 14.

         Capital Management sent Plaintiff a letter dated September 4, 2016. Id. at ¶s 2, 3 & Ex. 1. The letter identified the original and current creditor as U.S. Bank, the account number as 5702, and the amount of debt to be $565.91. The letter stated that Capital Management had been “engaged by U.S. BANK to resolve [Ms. Powers'] delinquent debt of $565.91.” 5702 is the last four digits of the U.S. Bank account number placed with Capital Management for collections.

         Capital Management submits by declaration of Cara Robinson that Capital Management did not apply, charge, or otherwise add any interest to the amount of the debt owed, and neither was the account accruing any interest while Capital Management was attempting to collect on it. Robinson Decl. ¶4, ECF No. 14. Ms. Robinson is employed as Vice President of Technology with Capital Management and made her declaration based on her personal review of Capital Management's business records. Capital Management sent only this one letter and on about November 3, 2016, Defendant closed and returned the Account to U.S. Bank, at U.S. Bank's request. Id. at ¶7.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). An issue is “genuine” if a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Rivera v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 395 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A fact is “material” if it could affect the outcome of the case. Id. The court reviews evidence and draws inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hunt v.

         Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552 (1999)). When the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party must present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Duty to disclose whether or not interest is accruing

         While there is no Ninth Circuit opinion on the issue, at least one judge in the District of Oregon has found that a debt collector does not have a duty to affirmatively state that no interest is accruing or to warn the consumer that interest could accrue if the account is sold to another creditor in the future. Santibanez v. Nat'l Credit Systems, Inc., 2017 WL 126111 (D. Or. Jan. 12, 2017). I agree with my colleague's prior decision. Where interest is not accruing on a debt, the debt collector does not need to state that no interest is accruing. Rather, it is only in instances when interest is accruing on a debt does Section 1692g(a)(1) require a debt collector to disclose that fact and include both principle and interest when stating the amount due. Id., citing Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols & Clark, LLC, 214 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2000).

         Plaintiff argues in her response that while there is evidence in the Declaration of Ms. Robinson that Capital Management was not adding interest, there is no evidence as to whether U.S. Bank was or was not adding interest on the debt. Plf.'s Resp. 2, ECF No. 15. I am unpersuaded by Plaintiff's arguments. The evidence in the record shows that U.S. Bank assigned the account to Capital Management and after that point Capital Management was the holder of the debt. The record is clear that Capital Management was not adding interest to the debt during the time that Capital Management was seeking to collect on the debt. Because a debt collector is not required to inform the debtor that interest is not accruing on the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.