Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, No. 14-56927 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit alleging that the law firm of Epsten Grinnell & Howell and attorney Debora M. Sumwalt (collectively, "Epsten") committed unlawful debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act), Cal. Civ. Code 1788 et seq., and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq. The district court dismissed the FDCPA claims and the state law claims. The court held, however, that plaintiff has alleged a plausible claim for relief because the collection letter contains language that overshadows and conflicts with her FDCPA debt validation rights when reviewed under the “least sophisticated debtor” standard; rejected Epsten's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that in sending the collection letter, it merely sought to perfect a security interest and is therefore subject only to the limitations in section 1692f(6); and held that Epsten is subject to the full scope of the FDCPA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sent her a debt collection letter demanding payment of an assessment fee from her homeowners’ association. The panel held that the plaintiff stated plausible claims for relief because the collection letter contained language that overshadowed and conflicted with her FDCPA debt validation rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g when reviewed under the “least sophisticated debtor” standard. The panel rejected the defendant’s argument that in sending the collection letter, it merely sought to perfect a security interest and was therefore subject only to the limitations in 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6).
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.