From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilfong v. Persolve, LLC

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 30, 2011
Civ. No. 10-3083-CL (D. Or. Jun. 30, 2011)

Summary

concluding that receipt of an unanswered phone call without a message left on the plaintiff's phone does not constitute a communication within the meaning of the FDCPA

Summary of this case from Pearson v. Apria Healthcare Grp.

Opinion

Civ. No. 10-3083-CL.

June 30, 2011


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Although no objections have been filed, this court reviews the legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).

I have given this matter de novo review. I conclude the Report and Recommendation is correct. Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#23) is adopted. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (#10) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wilfong v. Persolve, LLC

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 30, 2011
Civ. No. 10-3083-CL (D. Or. Jun. 30, 2011)

concluding that receipt of an unanswered phone call without a message left on the plaintiff's phone does not constitute a communication within the meaning of the FDCPA

Summary of this case from Pearson v. Apria Healthcare Grp.
Case details for

Wilfong v. Persolve, LLC

Case Details

Full title:SANDI WILFONG, Plaintiff, v. PERSOLVE, LLC, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jun 30, 2011

Citations

Civ. No. 10-3083-CL (D. Or. Jun. 30, 2011)

Citing Cases

Rush v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. LLC

In contrast to Cerrato, Portfolio points to several decisions in which courts have concluded under facts…

Rush v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. LLC

In contrast to Cerrato, Portfolio points to several decisions in which courts have concluded under facts…