DAVID TOURGEMAN V. COLLINS FINANCIAL SERVICES, No. 12-56783 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 25, 2014.
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID TOURGEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 12-56783 v. D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01392CAB-NLS COLLINS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., DBA Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc., a Texas corporation; NELSON & KENNARD, a partnership; PARAGON WAY, INC.; COLLINS FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, ORDER and DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LP, Defendant. Filed October 31, 2014 Before: Jerome Farris and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges, and Paul L. Friedman, District Judge.* * The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, District Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation. 2 TOURGEMAN V. COLLINS FINANCIAL SERVS. ORDER The opinion filed June 25, 2014 is AMENDED as follows: 1. At page 4 of the slip opinion, the following sentence is deleted: We now reverse and hold that judgment should be entered for Tourgeman. and replaced with: We now reverse. 2. At page 24 of the slip opinion, the following sentence is deleted: Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to judgment on his claims against Paragon Way under subsections 1692e(2) and e(10). 3. At page 30 of the slip opinion, the following sentence is deleted: These conclusions are sufficient to warrant both reversal of the judgment granted to Nelson & Kennard and entry of judgment in favor of Tourgeman. and replaced with: TOURGEMAN V. COLLINS FINANCIAL SERVS. 3 These conclusions are sufficient to warrant reversal of the judgment granted to Nelson & Kennard. 4. At pages 30 31 of the slip opinion, the following sentence is deleted: For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the judgment of the district court granting judgment to Collins, Paragon Way, and Nelson & Kennard must be reversed, and that judgment should instead be entered for Tourgeman against Paragon Way and Nelson & Kennard. and replaced with: For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the judgment of the district court granting judgment to Collins, Paragon Way, and Nelson & Kennard must be reversed. 5. At page 31 of the slip opinion, the following sentence is deleted: We express no view regarding whether Tourgeman is entitled to judgment against Collins itself, as Tourgeman s claims against that entity were based on a theory of vicarious liability that was neither decided by the district court nor briefed on this appeal. With this amendment, Judges Hurwitz and Friedman have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Farris did not 4 TOURGEMAN V. COLLINS FINANCIAL SERVS. vote. Judge Hurwitz voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, Judge Friedman so recommends, and Judge Farris made no recommendation. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, filed August 13, 2014, are DENIED. No further petition for rehearing and/or petition for rehearing en banc may be filed.
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.
