MANDELAS v. DANIEL N. GORDON, P.C. et al

Filing 100

ORDER re: WCAA AND WCPA CLAIMS by Judge James L. Robart. (MD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 STEVEN MANDELAS, Plaintiff, 11 DANIEL N. GORDON, P.C., et al., Defendants. 14 15 ORDER RE: WCAA AND WCPA CLAIMS v. 12 13 CASE NO. C10-0594JLR In an order dated March 31, 2011 (Summ. J. Ord. (Dkt. # 85)), the court granted 16 Defendant Daniel N. Gordon, P.C.’s (“Gordon”) motion for summary judgment on 17 Plaintiff Steven Mandelas’s claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 18 (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 19 to Mr. Mandelas, the court concluded that there was no dispute as to any material fact and 20 that Gordon was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Mr. Mandelas’s claims that 21 Gordon’s alleged purposeful delay in collecting the debt and alleged failure to properly 22 ORDER- 1 1 serve a writ of garnishment filed in state court were unfair or unconscionable means of 2 collecting a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. (Summ. J. Ord. at 10-13.) 3 Gordon also moved for summary judgment on Mr. Mandelas’s claims for 4 violations of the Washington Collection Agency Act (“WCAA”), ch. 19.16 RCW, and 5 the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”), ch. 19.86 RCW. (See Dkt. # 47.) 6 Gordon sought summary judgment on these claims based solely only on the ground that it 7 is not subject to regulation under the WCAA. (See id.) The court denied Gordon’s 8 motion, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether it is 9 subject to the WCAA. (Summ. J. Ord. at 18-20.) The court observed, however, that Mr. 10 Mandelas’s WCAA and WCPA claims based on allegations of purposeful delay and 11 improper service of the writ of garnishment did not appear to be viable in light of the 12 court’s holdings regarding Mr. Mandelas’s FDCPA claims arising out of the same alleged 13 conduct. (Id. at 20 n. 8.) Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 56(f)(2), the court ordered Mr. Mandelas to show cause why it should not grant summary 15 judgment to Gordon on Mr. Mandelas’s WCAA and WCPA claims based on purposeful 16 delay and service of the writ of garnishment. (Dkt. # 86.) 17 On April 8, 2011, Mr. Mandelas filed a timely response to the court’s show cause 18 order. (Dkt. # 94.) Mr. Mandelas reaffirmed that he wishes to continue to pursue his 19 claims against Gordon based on its alleged engagement in collection activities without a 20 collection agency license in violation of the WCAA and WCPA. (Id. at 1-3.) Mr. 21 Mandelas stated, however, that: 22 ORDER- 2 1 2 3 To the extent that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint seeks relief under the WCAA and the WCPA “based on purposeful delay and service of the writ of garnishment” – as claims separate and distinct from those premised on and/or relating to RCW 19.16.110, RCW 19.16.260, RCW 19.16.440, and Chapter 19.86 RCW – Plaintiff does not intend to pursue the same. 4 (Id. at 3 ¶ 9.) The parties’ pretrial order also reflects that Mr. Mandelas will not pursue 5 WCAA and WCPA claims based on purposeful delay and service of the writ of 6 garnishment. (Dkt. # 98.) 7 Accordingly, in light of the court’s findings in its summary judgment order and 8 Mr. Mandelas’s response to the show cause order, the court GRANTS summary 9 judgment to Gordon on Mr. Mandelas’s WCAA and WCPA claims based on allegations 10 of purposeful delay and improper service of the writ of garnishment. Mr. Mandelas’s 11 WCAA and WCPA claims based on Gordon’s alleged engagement in collection activities 12 without a collection agency license remain for trial. 13 Dated this 18th day of April, 2011. 14 A 15 16 ____ JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER- 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?