Lane v. Gordon, No. 3:2010cv00793 - Document 37 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: Opinion and Order - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 24 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 28 is DENIED as MOOT. Signed on 2/7/2011 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION Civil Case No.1 0-793-KI CHARLES LANE, Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER vs. DANIEL N. GORDON, P.C., Defendant. Joshua Trigsted Trigsted Law Group, P .C. 5200 SW Meadows Rd., Suite 150 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Attorney for Plaintiff Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Jonathan M. Radmacher Kjersten H. Turpen McEwen Gisvold LLP 1100 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Attorneys for Defendant KING, Judge: Plaintiff Charles Lane brings a complaint under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") against defendant Daniel N. Gordon, P.C. Pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, I grant defendant's motion and deny Lane's motion. BACKGROUND Lane alleges that defendant's collection letter of February 16,2009, demanding $1,370.54 as the amount due and owing on a debt, was inconsistent with the amount defendant later demanded in a July 2009 lawsuit. In the July complaint, defendant alleged Lane owed the principal sum of$848.63, with accrued interest of$516.52, resulting in a total of$I,365.15, plus interest on the principal at the rate of 9% per annum from Februmy 16, 2009 until paid. Lane alleges that defendant violated the FDCP A by "stating in its Complaint an amount owing that is plainly inconsistent with another balance given earlier" in the Februmy 16, 2009 letter. First Am. Compl. ~ 12. He also alleges that defendant's "statement of the amount of the debt, made in the Complaint filed by Defendant against Plaintiff, was not accurate." Id. Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER ~ 14. LEGAL STANDARDS Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving patty is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The initial burden is on the moving party to point out the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Once the initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the opponent to demonstrate through the production of probative evidence that there remains an issue of fact to be tried. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,323 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9 th Cir. 2004). DISCUSSION The FDCP A prohibits "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation ... in connection with the collection of any debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Specifically, a debt collector may not falsely represent the "character, amount, or legal status of any debt" or use "any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer." Id. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute that "makes debt collectors liable for violations that are not knowing or intentional." Donohue v. Ouick Collect. Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9 th Cir. 2010). Defendant's Februaty 16, 2009 letter demanded $1,370.54, which defendant explains constituted $1,365.15 (the total as of the "last interest date" of February 10,2009) plus $5.39 in interest that had accrued from Februaty 10 to February 16. The July 2009 complaint sought the same principal and accrued interest ($1,365.15), but did not include the $5.39 in interest from Februaty 10 to Febl'Uaty 16. Defendant could have asserted a claim in the complaint for interest Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER from February 10, but did not. Instead, it sought interest from February 16, and therefore sought a lesser amount from Lane than he owed. Defendant simply sought less in the complaint than the full amount due and owing; since the amounts stated in the Februaly 10 demand letter and in the July 2009 complaint were both correct, defendant did not make a false statement. Consequently, I conclude that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as no rational trier of fact could conclude that defendant falsely represented the amount of the debt in the July 2009 complaint. As a result of my ruling, Lane's motion for summalY judgment is denied as moot. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#24) is granted and Lane's Motion for SummalY Judgment (#28) is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 7.7} day of February, 2011. gt:ViA ~ rr: 1 ~d. GarrM. Kmg United States District Judge Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER /

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.