F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

D A V I D T O U R

G E M A N , Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v. C O L L I N S F I N A N C I A L S E R

V I C E S , I N C

. , DB A Precision Recovery Analy tics, I nc., a Tex a s corporation; N E L S O N & K E N N A R D , a partnership; P A R A G O N W A Y , I N C .; C O L L I

N S F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S USA, I

N C ., Defendants-Appellees ,

a nd
D E L L F I N A N C I A L S E R

V I C E S , L P, Defendant

. No. 12-56783

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01392- CAB

- NL S

ORDER

F iled October 31, 2014
B efore: J e rome F arris and Andrew D. Hurwitz , Circuit J udg es, and Paul L . F riedman, District J udg e. *

* T h e Ho n o rab l e P au l L

. Fried m an , District J u d g e, U.S. District Co u rt f o r th e District o f

Co lu m b ia, sittin g b y

d esig n atio n
.T O U R G E M A N V

. C O L L I

N S F I N A N C I A L S E R

V S

. 2 ORDER The opi n i o n f

iled J une 25, 2014 is AMENDED a s follows:
1. A t pag e 4 of the slip opinion, the following sentence is deleted:
W e now r everse and hold that j u d g ment should be entered for Tourg eman. and replaced with:
W e now reverse. 2. At pag e 2 4 of the slip opinion, the following sentence is deleted: Accordi n g ly , the appellant is entitled to judg ment on his claims ag ainst Parag on W ay under subsections 1692e(2) and e(10).
3. At pag e 3 0 of the slip opinion, the follow i ng sentence is deleted: These conclusions are sufficient to warrant both reversal of the judg me nt g ranted to Nelson & Kennard and entry of j u d g ment in favor of Tourg eman. and replaced with:T O U R G E M A N V

. C O L L I

N S F I N A N C I A L S E R

V S

. 3 These conclusions are sufficient to warrant reversal of the judg ment g ranted to Nelson & Kennard.
4. At pag es 30

– 3 1 of the slip opinion, the following sentence is deleted:
F or the foreg oing reasons, we conclude that the judg ment of the district court g ranting j u d g ment to Collins, Parag on W ay , a n d Nelson & Kennard must be reversed, and that judg ment should instead be entered for Tourg eman ag ainst Parag o n W ay and N elson & Kennard. and replaced with:
F or the foreg oing reasons, we conclude that the judg ment of the district court g ranting ju d gm ent to Collins, Parag on W ay , a nd Nelson & Kennard must be reversed.
5. At pag e 3 1 of the slip opinion, the follow i ng sentence is deleted:
W e ex press no v iew reg ar ding whether Tourg eman is entitled to judg ment ag ai n st Collins itself, as Tourg eman’s claims ag ainst that e ntity w ere based on a theory of vicarious liability that was neither decided by the district court nor briefed on this appeal.
W ith this amendment, Ju d g e s Hurwitz and F riedman have voted to deny the petition for rehearing

. J udg e F arris did notT O U R G E M A N V

. C O L L I

N S F I N A N C I A L S E R

V S

. 4
vote. J udg e Hurwitz voted to deny the p etition for rehearing en banc, J u d ge Friedman so recommends, and J udg e F arris made no recommendation. The full court h as been advised of the petiti o n for rehearing en banc and n o active judg e has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. F ed. R. App. P. 35. The petit i o n f

o r rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, filed Aug u s t 1 3 , 2014, are DENIED

. No f urther petition f o r r ehearing a

n d / o r p etition for rehearing en banc may be filed.