The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has vacated a lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a collector that was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ruling the District Court judge made a mistake and should have considered a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff as a partial summary judgment motion and did not give the plaintiff a chance to be heard on additional claims that were made in the complaint.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Pearson v. Apria Healthcare Group and Arstrat can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the agency violated Sections 1692c, 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA when it attempted to collect on a debt that should have been taken care of by her health insurance provider. The plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion against the collection agency, and then the plaintiff and the healthcare provider filed for summary judgment against each other. A District Court judge granted the agency’s motion for summary judgment on all three claims. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the judge failed to consider a collection letter she received, but the judge denied the motion.
While the plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the judge failed when choosing not to consider the letter and when dismissing claims that the agency violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as well, which were based on supplemental jurisdiction.
But where the District Court judge made a mistake, the Appeals Court ruled, is by considering the plaintiff’s motion as one for summary judgment instead of partial summary judgment. In her motion, the plaintiff only argued how the defendant violated Section 1692c of the FDCPA and did not mention the 1692e or 1692f claims. Even the response brief from the agency treated the plaintiff’s motion as one for partial summary judgement, the Appeals Court noted.
“Because the district court dismissed Pearson’s federal claims under § 1692e and § 1692f with respect to the Collection Letter without giving her adequate notice and a reasonable time to respond, the district court violated Rule 56(f),” the Appeals Court wrote.
The defendants also attempted to argue the plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but the Appeals Court said that was a decision the District Court judge had to make, and instructed him to do so.
