Henderson v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., No. 17-55373 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for USA Funds, holding that the district court incorrectly determined that a reasonable jury could not hold USA Funds vicariously liable for the debt collectors' alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations. The panel held that USA Funds was not per se vicariously liable under FCC orders. However, the panel held that, under federal common law, there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether USA Funds ratified the debt collectors' calling practices and thus had a principal-agent relationship with the debt collectors.
Court Description: Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The panel reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the owner of the plaintiff’s student loans, and remanded for further proceedings in an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The panel held that a reasonable jury could hold the defendant vicariously liable for alleged TCPA violations by debt collectors. The defendant hired a student loan servicer, which hired the debt collectors. The panel held that the defendant was not per se vicariously liable under FCC orders. Under federal common law, however, there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant ratified the debt collectors’ calling practices and had a principal-agent relationship with the debt collectors. Dissenting, Judge Bybee agreed that the FCC orders did not create per se liability. He wrote that, assuming ratification may create an agency relationship, he disagreed with the majority that there was a material issue of fact as to whether the defendant ratified the debt collectors’ conduct or granted the debt collectors implied actual authority to violate the TCPA.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 6, 2019.
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.