James A. Swanson, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in all but part II of the majority opinion. As to that part, I dissent.

Swanson does not contend that the debt validation clause was omitted from the initial communication. On the contrary, he agrees it was included. Rather, he argues that there was a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) because the debt validation clause, which was in ordinary print at the bottom of the initial communication, was eclipsed by a different provision using very large print in the middle of the initial communication which stated: “If this account is paid within the next 10 days it will not be recorded in our master file as an unpaid collection item. A good credit rating is your most valuable asset.”

The district court rejected Swanson’s “visual effect” argument. The court concluded that Southern Oregon’s notice sufficiently notified Swanson of his section 1692g rights.

After considering the limited case law discussing section 1692g, I believe that we should review the document as a whole in order to evaluate whether a given notice would sufficiently inform a least sophisticated debtor of his debt validation rights. See Baker v. G.C. Services Corp., 677 F.2d 775,…

Swanson appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment to Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc. (Southern Oregon). Swanson alleges that some of Southern Oregon’s debt collection practices violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (1982) (Federal Act), and the Oregon Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act, Or.Rev.Stat. § 646.639 (1987) (Oregon Act). The district court had jurisdiction over the Federal Act claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). It declined to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent state claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

I

Swanson owed $262.20 to Cascade Community Hospital. The hospital referred collection of the debt to Southern Oregon. Southern Oregon sent various notices to Swanson and made an indeterminate number of telephone calls in an attempt to collect the debt.

In Swanson’s suit against Southern Oregon, he alleged that some of Southern Oregon’s debt collection practices violated the Federal Act and the Oregon Act. The district court granted summary judgment for Southern Oregon with respect to Swanson’s claims under the Federal Act, denied…

869 F.2d 1222 James A. SWANSON, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. SOUTHERN OREGON CREDIT SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. Nos. 87-3756, 87-3874. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 6, 1988. Decided Dec. 16, 1988. As Amended March 29, 1989. Doug S. Gard, Medford, Or., for plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee. Christopher A. Ledwidge, Frohnmayer, Deatherage, deSchweinitz, Pratt & Jamieson, P.C., Medford, Or., for defendant-appellee-cross-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before WALLACE and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and STEPHENS, * Senior District Judge. PER CURIAM: 1 Swanson appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment to Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc. (Southern Oregon). Swanson alleges that some of Southern Oregon's debt collection practices violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1692 et seq. (1982) (Federal Act), and the Oregon Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act, Or.Rev.Stat. Sec. 646.639 (1987) (Oregon Act). The district court had jurisdiction over the Federal Act claims under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(d). It declined to…