IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MORSE EDWARD STEWART, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOSEPH R. HAWES, President and 

Chief Executive Officer, HAWES 

FINANCIAL GROUP, PROFESSIONAL 

CREDIT SERVICE, 

Defendant. 

AIKEN, Chief Judge: 

Case No. 3:14-cv-1643-AA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., based 

on defendants' attempts to collect medical debts allegedly owed by 

plaintiff. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's claims for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1 See 

1

After defendant filed the motion to dismiss, plaintiff 

moved for default judgment. However, defendant responded to 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01643-AA Document 12 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). The motion is granted and this action is 

dismissed. 

BACKGROUND 

According to plaintiff's complaint and the documents attached 

thereto, on June 23, 2014, defendant Professional Credit Service 

(PCS) 2 sent plaintiff a notification that PCS sought to collect a 

debt in the amount of $425.13 owed by plaintiff. Pl.'s Compl. Ex. 

1 (doc. 1 at 12). The notification informed plaintiff that he must 

either pay the debt or contact PCS ~to discuss reasonable 

arrangements." The notice also identified a particular address to 

which plaintiff should direct any disputes regarding the debt. 

Finally, the notice identified the creditor as Providence St. 

Vincent. 

On June 28, 2014, plaintiff sent PCS a ~Debt Collector 

Disclosure Statement" and ~Request for Bona Fide Proof of Claim." 

Pl.'s Compl. Ex. 2 (doc. 1-1 at 1-9). 

On July 11, 2014, PCS responded and provided plaintiff with 

itemized billing statements from the creditor, Providence St. 

Vincent. The itemized billing statements indicated the medical care 

plaintiff's complaint- through the motion to dismiss -and 

default is not warranted or appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(a) (entry of default is appropriate where the defendant ~has 

failed to plead or otherwise defend") (emphasis added) . 

2Plaintiff names Joseph Hawes, as President and CEO of PCS, 

as the defendant. However, the proper defendant is PCS, as the 

entity that sought to collect the debt. 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01643-AA Document 12 Filed 02/10/15 Page 2 of 7
received by plaintiff's wife, the date such care was provided, the 

costs of the medical care, and the amount due and owing after 

adjustments for "Uninsured Patient Discount" and "Financial 

Assistance Uncollect." Pl.'s Compl. Ex. 3 (doc. 1-1 at 11-22). 

On July 30, 2014, PCS again contacted plaintiff by written 

notice and billing statement, indicating that the amount due was 

now $464.06 (after additional interest was applied). Pl.'s Compl. 

Ex. 4 (doc. 1-1 at 23). The notice again identified Providence St. 

Vincent as the creditor, with the amounts due for each account with 

Providence St. Vincent. The hotice indicated that plaintiff had not 

attempted to make payment arrangements and that PCS "may file a 

lawsuit to collect this past due balance." The notice again 

directed plaintiff to send any correspondence regarding disputed 

accounts to a particular address. 

On August 12, 2014, plaintiff sent PCS a "Lawful Notification 

of Default" and informed defendant that it was in "default" for 

failing to provide a "bona fide proof of claim." Pl.'s Compl. Ex. 

5 (doc. 1-1 at 24-25). On September 2, 2014, plaintiff sent PCS an 

"Offer to Settle" and requested payment in the amount of $2, 188.4 9. 

On October 16, 2104, plaintiff filed this action. 

On November 11, 2014, defendant filed the instant motion. 

DISCUSSION 

The FDCPA proscribes abusive collection practices by "any 

person who regularly collects or attempts to collect, 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01643-AA Document 12 Filed 02/10/15 Page 3 of 7
directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or 

due another." 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). PCS does not dispute that it is 

a debt collector under the FDCPA. However, PCS argues that 

plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim under the meaning of 

the FDCPA. I agree. 

Plaintiff alleges that PCS violated provisions of the FDCPA 

that prohibit threatening, abusive or harassing communications when 

seeking to collect a debt. See Pl.'s Compl. 5-6; 15 U.S.C. 1692d. 

Further, plaintiff maintains that PCS failed to validate or verify 

the debt after plaintiff requested validation. 3 However, the 

evidence attached to plaintiff's complaint belie his claims. 

Section 1692d includes examples of conduct that is considered 

abusive or harassing: 

( 1) The use or threat of use of violence or other 

criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, 

or property of any person. 

(2) The use of obscene or profane language or language 

the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer 

or reader. 

3Plaintiff's complaint also purports to allege claims of 

criminal conspiracy, unjust enrichment, bad faith, theft by 

deception, and fraud upon the court. Aside from the fact that 

plaintiff cannot pursue claims sounding in criminal law, 

plaintiff's complaint does not allege that PCS acted 

fraudulently; plaintiff does not allege that PCS acted in bad 

faith to collect a fraudulent or invalid debt. In fact, PCS was 

entitled to rely on the itemized billing statements from 

Providence St. Vincent to establish the validity of the debt. See 

Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 

117 4 (9th Cir. 2 0 0 6) ( FDCPA does not impose on a debt collector 

"any duty to investigate independently the claims" presented by a 

creditor). 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01643-AA Document 12 Filed 02/10/15 Page 4 of 7
(3) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly 

refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting 

agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 

1681a(f) or 1681b(3) of this title. 

( 4) The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce 

payment of the debt. 

(5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in 

telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with 

intent to annoy, abuse, / or harass any person at the 

called number. 

(6) Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, 

the placement of telephone calls without meaningful 

disclosure of the caller's identity. 

15 u.s.c. § 1692d. 

Here, plaintiff makes no allegation that PCS engaged in 

conduct similar to that enumerated above. Plaintiff alleges no 

threats, no profane language, no publication or advertising of 

debt, and no continuous or anonymous phone calls on the part of 

PCS. Rather, plaintiff alleges that PCS sent written correspondence 

two or three times over a two-month period, none of which contained 

threatening or harassing language. Further, plaintiff alleges 

merely that PCS indicated it would be "forced to proceed" and that 

PCS "may file a lawsuit." Such statements do not violate§ 1692d as 

a matter of law. Further, plaintiff does not allege false or 

deceptive misrepresentations on the part of PCS, and the documents 

attached to plaintiff's complaint do not support such a claim in 

any event. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. 

Plaintiff also alleges that PCS failed to verify the debt 

after plaintiff asked that it do so. Section 1692g requires a debt 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01643-AA Document 12 Filed 02/10/15 Page 5 of 7
collector to obtain verification of the debt upon request of the 

consumer and to cease collection efforts until such verification is 

mailed to the consumer. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b); Clark v. Capital 

Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1173 n.9 (9th Cir. 

2006). As evidenced by documents attached to plaintiff's complaint, 

PCS obtained verification of the debt from Providence St. Vincent 

and did not resume collection of the debt until such verification 

was mailed to plaintiff. See Pl.'s Compl. Exs. 3-4. To the extent 

plaintiff argues that the verification provided by PCS was 

deficient, plaintiff is incorrect. 

In Clark, the Ninth Circuit found that verification efforts 

similar to those of PCS satisfied the requirements of the FDCPA. 

Specifically, the court stated: 

Undisputed facts demonstrate that, upon the Clarks' 

request for verification, Capital obtained information 

from Dr. Evans about the nature and balance of the 

outstanding bill and provided the Clarks with documentary 

evidence in the form of the itemized statement. Hasson 

also sent the Clarks a copy of the itemized statement, 

which he had received from Capital. Within reasonable 

limits, Capital and Hasson were entitled to rely on their 

client's statements to verify the debt. Moreover, the 

FDCPA did not impose upon them any duty to investigate 

independently the claims presented by Dr. Evans. 

Clark, 4 60 F. 3d at 117 4 ( caselaw citations omitted) . Here, PCS 

likewise obtained from Providence St. Vincent information "about 

the nature and balance of the outstanding bill," and PCS provided 

plaintiff "with documentary evidence in the form of the itemized 

statement[s] ." Id. The FDCPA requires nothing more of PCS. 

6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01643-AA Document 12 Filed 02/10/15 Page 6 of 7
In sum, plaintiff fails to state viable claims that PCS 

violated any provision of the FDCPA, and the remainder of 

plaintiff's claims are hot cognizable or supported by plaintiff's 

allegations. 

CONCLUSION 

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 5) is GRANTED, plaintiff's 

Motion for Default (doc. 6) is DENIED, and this action is 

DISMISSED. All other pending motions (docs. 7, 10, 11) are DENIED 

as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this /O~ay of February, 2015. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

7 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01643-AA Document 12 Filed 02/10/15 Page 7 of 7