United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael J. McShane United States District Judge.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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)).
Duty to disclose whether or not interest is
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
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