Stanley M. Juras v. Aman Collection Service, Inc. And Robert A. Gloss

dissenting in part:

I agree with the opinion except for the holding that withholding Juras’ transcript did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 -1692o (1982 & Supp. Ill 1985). It is a violation of section 1692e to “threaten to take any action that cannot legally be taken.” The NDSL statutes require that institutions make the loans to students “without security.” Taking security violates the law, so that using that method to collect a debt constitutes a violation of the Act. Congress included the prohibition against security in the original NDSL statute, see Pub.L. No. 85-864 § 205 (b)(5), 72 Stat. 1580,1585 (1958), and has retained it to the present. See Pub.L. No. 99-498 § 405 , 100 Stat. 1268 , 1450 (1986).

To resolve Juras’ claim that withholding his transcript is an illegal action, we must interpret Congress’ intent in prohibiting security for student loans. Unfortunately, as the majority points out, there is scant authority to assist us in this task. The loan statutes do not define “security” and the legislative history is silent on the meaning and purpose of the prohibition against taking security. See H.R.Rep. No. 2157, 85 Cong., 2d. Sess.…

829 F.2d 739 41 Ed. Law Rep. 1278 , 4 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1027 Stanley M. JURAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMAN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. and Robert A. Gloss, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 84-1923, 84-2356. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 13, 1986. Decided Sept. 30, 1987. Robert E. White, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Christopher J. Rillo, James P. Hargarten and Richard Lapping, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before KENNEDY, BOOCHEVER and HALL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Juras, a judgment debtor, appeals pro se the decisions of the district court that (1) refused to permit amendment of his complaint; (2) dismissed several of his causes for action for failing to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (3) refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction over his state law claims, and (4) granted judgment, after a jury trial, to the defendant Aman on Juras' remaining claims under the Act. White, appearing as court-appointed counsel for Juras, appeals the district court's award of $8,540 in attorneys' fees against Juras…

Juras, a judgment debtor, appeals pro se the decisions of the district court that (1) refused to permit amendment of his complaint; (2) dismissed several of his causes for action for failing to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (3) refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction over his state law claims, and (4) granted judgment, after a jury trial, to the defendant Aman on Juras’ remaining claims under the Act. White, appearing as court-appointed counsel for Juras, appeals the district court’s award of $8,540 in attorneys’ fees against Juras for having brought the action in bad faith and for purposes of harassment. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS

Juras attended Montana State University (MSU) from 1972-76. He took out several loans under the National Defense (later “Direct”) Student Loan (NDSL) program to finance his education. 20 U.S.C. §§ 421-429 (1976), replaced by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1087aa-1087hh (1982 & Supp. III 1985). Juras defaulted on the loans, and v MSU assigned the notes to Aman Collection Service (Aman) for purposes of collection on August 2, 1978. Aman ultimately obtained a judgment against Juras in a Montana state court for $5,015.30 on…