Hernandez vs. Williams, Zinman & Parhan, PC

Summarized by Laura Coordes , Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
9 years 7 months ago

Citation:

Hernandez vs. Williams, Zinman & Parhan, PC, Case No. 14-15672 (9th Cir. Jul. 20, 2016)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

The FDCPA unambiguously requires any debt collector, whether an initial or subsequent collector, to send a § 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of its first communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt.

Procedural context:

Appeal from the District of Arizona, reviewed de novo.

Facts:

After debtor stopped making payments on her car loan, creditor sent her a letter seeking to collect the debt, to which debtor did not respond. Creditor subsequently retained a law firm to assist in its collection efforts. The law firm sent debtor a collection letter but did not provide the requisite notices under § 1692g(a). Law firm contended it was not required to comply with § 1692g(a) because the "initial communication" to the debtor came from the creditor, not the law firm.

Judge(s):

Noonan, Gould, Friedland

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!