From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 19, 2009
325 F. App'x 592 (9th Cir. 2009)

Summary

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff had failed to present evidence that the defendant requested the report without a permissible purpose

Summary of this case from Danaher v. Frederick J. Hanna & Assocs., P.C.

Opinion

No. 07-36100.

Argued and Submitted May 6, 2009.

Filed May 19, 2009.

Justin Michael Baxter, Michael C. Baxter, Esquire, Baxter Baxter, LLP, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

William L. Larkins, Jr., Julie R. Vacura, Larkins Vacura LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-01725-MO.

Before: W. FLETCHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEABRIGHT, District Judge.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


MEMORANDUM

The Honorable J. Michael Seabright, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.


Plaintiff George Thomas ("Thomas") brought this suit against Defendant U.S. Bank for its attempts to collect an uncollectible debt from Thomas and for two pulls of Thomas's credit report, claiming U.S. Bank's conduct violated Oregon statutes and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Thomas appeals various rulings by the district court.

We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on Thomas's claims under the Oregon Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act ("UDCPA"). Thomas's claim under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639(2)(m) fails because he presented no evidence that U.S. Bank represented that Thomas's debt would be increased by fees or other charges. Thomas's claim under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639(2)(n) fails because he presented no evidence that the difference between his actual debt amount and the amount U.S. Bank attempted to collect was attributable to added interest or fees. Thomas's claim under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639(2)(k) fails because a litigation is not a "right or remedy" that was unavailable to U.S. Bank when it threatened to sue. Porter v. Hill, 314 Or. 86, 838 P.2d 45, 49 (1992); Pro Car Care, Inc. v. Johnson, 201 Or.App. 250, 118 P.3d 815, 818 (2005).

We also affirm the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to U.S. Bank on Thomas's "permissible purposes" FCRA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f). Thomas presented no evidence that U.S. Bank or Capital Management Services, Inc., had requested his credit report for any reason other than to attempt to collect on the debt, and requesting a credit report with the intent to collect on a debt is among the "permissible purposes" listed in the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the video testimony of Thomas's deceased expert witness. Nor did it abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to U.S. Bank.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Thomas v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 19, 2009
325 F. App'x 592 (9th Cir. 2009)

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff had failed to present evidence that the defendant requested the report without a permissible purpose

Summary of this case from Danaher v. Frederick J. Hanna & Assocs., P.C.

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff had failed to present evidence that the defendant requested the report without a permissible purpose

Summary of this case from Anderson v. United Recovery Sys., L.P.

affirming summary judgment when plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that defendant obtained credit report for any reason other than to collect on a debt

Summary of this case from Russell v. RJM Acquisitions
Case details for

Thomas v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Case Details

Full title:George THOMAS; Linda Thomas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. BANK, N.A.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 19, 2009

Citations

325 F. App'x 592 (9th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Russell v. RJM Acquisitions

15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A). Courts have held that 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) applies to collection agencies…

Pyle v. First Nat'l Collection Bureau

In an unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion, the court held that "requesting a credit report with the intent to…