Weinstein & Riley Ps v. Paul Strasters

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Weinstein & Riley, P.S., appeals a civil judgment for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly analyzed whether a settlement agreement between plaintiffs Paul and Zadelle Strasters and co-defendant Wells Fargo released Wein-stein & Riley from liability. The district court properly concluded that the settlement agreement was ambiguous as to whether it released Weinstein & Riley, and therefore properly denied Weinstein & Riley’s motion for summary judgment on that ground. See Hearst Comm’ns v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wash.2d 493, 510 , 115 P.3d 262 (2005). It was also not clear error for the court to find after a bench trial that extrinsic evidence demonstrated the agreement did not release Weinstein & Riley from liability. See Saint John’s Organic Farm v. Gem County Mosquito Abatement Dist., 574 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir.2009) (reviewing district court’s factual findings for clear error).

The district court erred, however, when it granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on a prima facie FDCPA violation.…