Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Servs., No. 12-56783 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., alleging that defendants made false representations to him in connection with their efforts to collect a purported debt. Plaintiff claimed that defendants violated the FDCPA by misidentifying his original creditor in a series of collection letters sent to him, as well as in a complaint filed against him in state court. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that plaintiff had Article III standing where plaintiff alleged that he suffered the violation of his right not to be the target of misleading debt collection miscommunications. The court also concluded that plaintiff had statutory standing under the FDCPA. The court concluded that Nelson & Kennard violated the FDCPA by including misleading references to American Investment Bank in both its letter to plaintiff and in the state court complaint it filed against him. These conclusions were sufficient to warrant both reversal of the judgment granted to Nelson & Kennard and entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The panel held that the plaintiff had Article III standing to assert claims based on collection letters that he did not receive because the alleged violation of his statutory right not to be the target of misleading debt collection communications constituted a cognizable injury. The panel also held that the plaintiff had a statutory cause of action under the FDCPA. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment on claims that the defendants violated § 1692e of the FDCPA by misidentifying the plaintiff’s original creditor in a series of collection letters sent to him, as well as in a complaint filed against him in state court. The panel held that the letters and the complaint were materially misleading, and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment under § 1692e(2) and (10). Dissenting, Judge Farris wrote that he would affirm the district court’s judgment.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 31, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.