Fangsrud Von Esch et al v. Legacy Salmon Creek Hospital et al

Filing 150

ORDER granting 140 Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Defendant's Motion for Fees and Costs pending appeal; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

JOSEPH and RENNY FANGSRUD
VON ESCH,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.
ASSET SYSTEMS, INC., an Oregon
Corporation d/b/a in Washington as
ASSET SYSTEMS, pursuant to
Washington UBI No. 601474356,

CASE NO. C16-5842RBL
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO STAY DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR FEES AND COSTS
DKT. #140

Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Defendant’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927 Motion for Fees and Costs [Dkt. #140]. The motion is prompted by the plaintiffs’ appeal
of this Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims at the end of the plaintiffs’ case on September 16,
2019 [Dkts. 130, 131, 134]. On September 24, 2019, defendant filed a motion for an award of
fees and costs [Dkts. 135-137]. On September 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed their appeal [Dkt. #138].
The Court GRANTS the motion to stay but adds a cautionary tale to the plaintiffs’
lawyers. This Court granted summary judgment in favor of the original defendants Legacy
Salmon Creek Hospital and Assets Systems, Inc., the co-op which serves as bill collector for its
only client, Legacy Hospital. The Court did not grant attorneys’ fees to either side. The Court of
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FEES AND
COSTS - 1

1

Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the hospital saying: “The district court did not err in granting

2

summary judgment to Legacy on Plaintiffs’ Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev.

3

Code § 19.86, claim. An act or practice is not unfair under Washington law if the consumer can

4

avoid the injury. Merriman v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 396 P.3d 351, 368 (Wash. Ct.

5

App. 2017). Here, Plaintiffs knew the bill was in error when they received it from Legacy, and

6

Legacy provided a toll-free number to call with billing questions. Plaintiffs took no action until

7

two years later when they received the bill from Asset.”

8

The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the collection company saying:

9

“The district court erred in granting summary judgment to Asset on Plaintiffs’ federal

10

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim. One could reasonably determine that Asset violated 15

11

U.S.C. §1692e when it attempted to collect more than what was owed, continued to do so after

12

Plaintiffs and their attorney told Asset about the error, and despite having been told of the billing

13

error, improperly threatened a lawsuit without adequate inquiry. See Afewerki v. Anaya Law

14

Grp., 868 F.3d 771, 777 (9th Cir. 2017); Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055,

15

1063-4 n.6 (9th Cir. 2011). On this record, Asset cannot establish as a matter of law a bona fide

16

error defense. See McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 948 (9th

17

Cir. 2011); Reichert v. Nat’l Credit Sys., 531 F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 2008).”

18

At trial the testimony and the documentary evidence were not consistent with the story

19

told to the Court of Appeals. There was no lawsuit threatened by the billing company. The

20

plaintiffs’ lawyers, after sending a letter to Asset to cease and desist, would not return any of

21

Asset’s phone calls to clarify the situation. The lawyers in their letter instructed Asset to direct

22

all communications to them, not their client. But the lawyers would not pick up the phone.

23

Asset did communicate with the client hospital to question the accuracy of the debt the hospital

24

DKT. #140 - 2

1

placed into collection. The hospital verified the amount of the debt owed by the plaintiffs.

2

The plaintiffs themselves were less than fully engaged in resolving the confusion between their

3

insurance company, the hospital and the collection company. They did not promptly give the

4

insurance information to Asset.

5

At trial the evidence demonstrated this situation has never occurred before or after this

6

event. The billing company took reasonable steps to verify the legitimacy and accuracy of the

7

debt they were trying to collect. This was a classic bona fide error for which the defendant

8

cannot be fairly held accountable for the inconvenience experienced by the plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION

9
10

The Motion to Stay is GRANTED. The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs will be

11

held in abeyance pending appeal. It is difficult to fathom how the plaintiffs who suffered no

12

financial loss and had multiple legitimate debts in collection all at the same time, can cobble up

13

losses of multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in emotional distress, dismissed an offer of

14

$20,000 in settlement, and instead exposed themselves for attorney fees of $100,000 as the

15

losing party. That is the “brutal truth.”

16
17

Dated this 1st day of November, 2019.

18
19

A

20

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

21

22
23
24

DKT. #140 - 3