Davis v. Hollins Law, No. 14-16437 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendant, a law firm and debt collection agency, alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692(e)(11). Plaintiff alleged that defendant was attempting to collect a debt on behalf of American Express and that by leaving the September 25th voicemail message, defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication was from a debt collector in violation of section 1692e(11). The court held that if a subsequent communication is sufficient to disclose to the least sophisticated debtor that the communication was from a debt collector, there is no violation of section 1692e(11) even if the debt collector did not expressly state, “this communication is from a debt collector.” Accordingly, defendant did not violate the FDCPA and the court reversed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Court Description: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiff on a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The panel held that the defendant’s communication was sufficient in context to disclose to the least sophisticated debtor that it was from a debt collector, and therefore did not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11).
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.