N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
THOM AS W E INSTEIN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. M ANDAR IC H LAW GR OUP, LLP,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-35130

D.C . No. 2:17-c v-01897-R SM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ardo S. M artine z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd subm itte d on De c e m

b e r 10, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c K EOW

N a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s, a nd HAR POOL, * * Distric t Judge
. M anda

ric h La wGroup a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting W e inste in’ s m o t ion for pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e n t, a

nd subse que nt ve rdic t

in 

# F IL ED
DEC 24 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M . Dougla s Ha

rpool, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of M i ssouri, sitting by de signa tion.W e inste in’ s favor, on his c la im s brought pursua nt to theFa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (“ FDC PA” ) an d the W a shington C o lle c t ion Age nc y Ac t (“ W C AA” ). M an da ric h a lso a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of M anda ric h’ s m otion to de e m thre e re que sts for a d

m ission (“ R

FA” ) a dm itte d. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm

in pa rt, re v e rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. 1 W e re vie w de novo a

n orde r granting sum

m ary judgm e nt. H

e rre ra v . C ommand Se c . C

orp ., 837 F.3d 979, 984 (9th C ir. 2016). W e m ay a ffirm the de c ision on a

ny ba sis supporte d in the re c ord. San J ose C hristian C

o ll. v . C ity of Morgan Hill , 360 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th C ir. 2004). W he re , a s he re , the pa

rtie s have both file d sum

m ary judgm e nt m otions, this c ourt c o nside rs e a c h pa rty ’ s
e vide nc e to e va luate whe the r sum m ary judgm e nt wa s a

p p ropriate . He rre ra , 837 F.3d at 985. 1. M anda ric h a rgue s the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion by de ny i ng its
m otion to de e m

c e rta in R FAs a dm itte d. W e re vie w this ruling for a buse of disc re tion. Se eAse a, Inc . v . S. Pac . Transp. C o ., 669 F.2d 1242, 1247 (9th C ir. 1981). Assuming without de c iding tha t the distric t

c o urt a b use d its disc re tion in

1 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we re c ite only those fa c ts ne c e ssa ry to re solve this a

ppe a l. 2de ny ing the m otion, M anda ric h fa ile d to show how it wa s pre judic e d. Any

e rror
wa s ha rm le ss. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2111. 2. M anda ric h c onte nds tha

t the sta tute of lim ita

tions ba rre d W e inste in’ s FDC PA c la im s . The FDC PA’ s sta tute of lim ita

tions re q u ire s c la im s to be m a de

“ within oney e ar from

the date on whic h the viola tion oc c urs.” 15 U.S.C . § 1692k(d). If the fa c ts a

re not in dispute , we re vie w sta tute of lim ita

tions de c isions de novo. He rre ra , 837 F.3d a t 985. M anda ric h a rgue s tha t Rotk isk e v . K le mm , No. 18-328, 2019 W L 6703563 (U.S. De c . 10, 2019), c ontrols be c a use the distric t c ourt re lie d in pa rt on the disc ove ry rule to de t e rm i ne tha

t W e inste in’ s FDC PA c la im s we re tim e ly . B ut the distric t c o urt a lso c onc lude d tha t W e inste in’ s FDC PA c la im s we re tim e ly be c a use he file d this a c tion within one

y e ar of his wa ge s be ing ga rnishe d. W e inste i n’ s c om

pla int a l le ge d tha

t M an da ric h viola te d the prohibition
a ga inst “unfa ir or unc onsc iona ble m e ans to c olle c t

or atte m pt to c olle c t a

ny de bt.” 15 U.S.C . § 1692f. The distric t c ourt did not err by c onc luding tha

t M anda ric h viola te d § 1692f whe n it ga

rnishe d W e inste in’ s wa g e s pursua nt to a de fa ult judgm e nt tha

t M an da ric h a dm its it se c ure d while W e inste in wa s in the proc e ss of
m aking pa

y m e nts a c c ording to the

pa rtie s’ ora l a gre e m e n t. The de fa ult judgm e nt did not c re dit W e inste in’ s prior pa ym e nts or providethe re quire d notic e unde r
3W a shington C ivil R ule s 55(a )(3) a

nd 55(f)(1), (2). Se e ge ne rally Fox v . C itic orp C re dit Se rv s., Inc
. , 15 F.3d 1507, 1517 (9th C ir. 1994) (noting tha t the FDC PA provisions “ inc lude [] a

non-e xha ustive list of e xam

ple s of prosc ribe d c onduc t” ). 2 M an da ric h a lso viola

t e d § 1692f whe n it initia t e d a se c ond ga

rnishm e nt of W e inste in’ s wa g e s. B e c a use the wa ge ga

rnishm e n ts c onstitute d FDC PA viola tions that oc c urre d within one y e ar a fte r the c om p la int wa s file d, the FDC PA’ s sta tute of lim ita tions did not ba

r W e inste in’ s c la im s. 3. M anda ric h a lso c onte n ds tha

t W e inste in’ s c l a im s a

re ba rre d by re s judic ata . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

c onc luding tha

t M an da ric h wa ive d this a ffirm ative de fe n se by fa iling to inc lude it in its a n swe r. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 8(c )(1), 12(b). On the m e rits, M anda ric h c ite s no a

uthority supporting its a

rgum e nt tha

t re s judic ata

a pplie s whe re a

de bt c olle c tor fa ils to provide notic e to the de btor of a n ongoing sta

te c ourt a c tion. 3 The c a s e la w M an da ric h doe s c ite is distinguisha ble
.

2 M a nda ric h a rgue s tha t W e inste in wa i ve d his FDC PA c la im ba se d on the wa ge ga rnishm e nts be c a

use he did not ra ise this issue be fore the distric t c ourt. B ut W e inste in’ s c om

pla int a s se rte d tha

t the ga rnishm e nts viola

te d the FDC PA, a s did his re sponse to M anda

ric h’ s m o tion for sum

m ary judgm e n t. 3 M a nda ric h ha s be e n a dm onishe d by W a shington sta

te c ourts for its “ patte rn of . . . fa i ling to c o m ply with theloc a l rule s re ga

rding m otions for de fa ult.” C ac h, LLC v . K asahara , No. 15-2-16887-8 (W a s h. Supp. C t., Fe b. 8, 2016) . 44. M anda ric h a rgue s the distric t c ourt e rre d by re je c ting its bona

fide e rror de fe nse . The bona

fide e rror de fe nse is a

“ na rrow e xc e ption” to stric t lia bility unde r the FDC PA. Re ic he rt v . N at’l C re dit Sy s., Inc
. , 531 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting C

lark v . C apital C re dit & C olle c tion Se rv

s., Inc
. , 460 F.3d 1162, 1177 (9th C ir. 2006)). To e sta blish a bona fide e rror de fe nse , the de bt
c olle c tor m

ust prove tha

t: “ (1) it viola

te d the FDC PA uninte ntiona lly ; (2) the viola tion re sulte d from

a bona fide e rror; and (3) it m a inta ine d proc e dure s
re a s ona bly a da pte d to a void theviola

tion.” Mc C

o llough v . J

ohnson, Rodenburg & Lauinge r, LLC , 637 F.3d 939, 948 (9th C i r. 2011); se e also 1 5 U.S.C . § 1692k(c ). The distric t c ourt did not err by c onc luding tha

t M a nda ric h did not
a de quate ly

support its bona

fide e rror de fe nse . M an da ric h c onte nds tha

t its
c om pute r sy ste m , whic h “ a

utom a t ic a lly popula

te [s] ” pa ym e nts tha

t ha ve be e n
m a de , is a proc e dure a da

pte d to a v oid e rrors in de fa

ult judgm e n ts, but fa i le d to
e xpla in how this proc e d

ure wa s “ a da

pte d to a void thee rror.” Re ic h e rt , 531 F.3d a t 1007. 5. M anda

ric h a rgue s tha t W e inste in fa ile d to sa

tisfy the e c onom ic injury
e le m e nt of his sta

te la w c la im brought pursua

n t to R C W § 19.16.250(21). A W C AA viola

tion is e nforc e d through W a shington’ s C onsum e r Prote c tion Ac t (“ W C PA” ) (R C W

19.86 e t se q .), and viola

tions of the W C AA a

re pe r se viola

tions
5of the sta

te c onsum e r prote c tion la w. Panag v . Farme rs Ins. C o. of W ash. , 204 P.3d 885, 897 (W a sh. 2009) (e n ba nc ). The distric t c ourt c o nc l ude d tha t W e inste in wa s e n title d to the am ount M an da ric h ga rnishe d ($1,468.94) a s a c tua l da m a ge s. B ut from

the re c ord
ava ila ble , it a ppe ars W e i nste i n still owe d $1,070.63 on the princ ipa l at

the tim e of the first ga

rnishm e nt. The distric t c ourt did not ma k e a finding re ga

rding whe the r M an da ric h wa s e n title d

to inte re st or e xpe nse s in a ddition to the princ ipa l, but the
re c o rd doe s not support the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t the e n tire ga

rnishm e nt
c onstitute d a c tua l da

m a ge s. W e va c ate the dam a ge s a

warde d on the W C AA c la im , inc luding thedistric t
c ourt’ s a w ard of tre ble d dam a ge s ($4,935.63), a nd re m and for re c a lc ulation of dam a ge s. AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.

6