Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment - 1

Joshua Trigsted

Oregon State Bar ID Number 06531

Trigsted Law Group, P.C.

5200 SW Meadows Rd Ste 150

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

888 595 9111 ext. 216

866 927 5826 facsimile

jtrigsted@attorneysforconsumers.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

CARLOS SANTIBANEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 6:16-cv-00081-AA

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

I. THERE IS NO GENUINE DISPUTE THAT DEFENDANT’S LETTER FAILED TO 

EFFECTIVELY CONVEY THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR TO WHOM 

THE DEBT IS OWED

First, Defendant did not address in any way in its response Plaintiff’s allegation that 

Defendant simply stated the wrong name of the current creditor and thereby violated 15 USC 

1692g(a)(2). Defendant’s initial letter listed “Encompass Management Consultants” at the top. 

While arguably similar, that name is substantially different as a matter of law than the actual name 

of the original creditor for the debt as shown in a letter addressed to Plaintiff by the original creditor 

itself, which is “Encompass Management & Consulting LLC.” (See Docket 14-1, p. 2 of 2). A 

search in the online Business Name Search of the Oregon Secretary of State turns up no business 

or registered trade name under the name of “Encompass Management Consultants.” It appears 

Case 6:16-cv-00081-AA Document 20 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 3
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment - 2

that Defendant simply misstated the name it intended to place on the letter. Encompass 

Management & Consulting, LLC, however, does appear in that online database. There are three 

differences between the name Defendant listed and the name of the actual company that is the 

original creditor for the debt at issue. First, the word “consulting” has been changed to 

“Consultants.” Second, the ampersand after “Management” has been removed. Third, the term 

“LLC” has been removed. An assumption that these two substantially different names refer to the 

identical entity is simply not justified. Therefore, Defendant did not effectively convey in its letters 

that “Encompass Management & Consulting, LLC” is the current creditor for the debt. Defendant 

has provided no evidence that these two different names refer to the same entity, let alone why it 

should have been clear to Plaintiff that they were the same after reading the initial letter. Therefore, 

Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment as to liability on this point.

Second, as argued in depth in the initial Motion (Docket 13) and in Plaintiff’s Response to 

Defendant’s Motion (Docket 16), even if it were held that the two very different names discussed 

in the previous paragraph were functionally identical, the letter did not clearly convey that 

“Encompass Management Consultants” was the current creditor at the time of the letter, and not 

merely the first in what could have been a line of multiple successive creditors, the most recent of 

which may or not have been listed at all in the letter. This is because it is not clear from the letter 

whether “Encompass Management Consultants” and “National Credit Systems, Inc.” are the only 

two entities ever to have been involved with the debt collection. The language in the letter is 

entirely consistent with a hypothetical scenario (something that happens quite frequently in the 

debt collection world) where the original creditor had sold the debt to a third party, and that third 

party had hired National Credit Systems, Inc. to collect the debt. 

Case 6:16-cv-00081-AA Document 20 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 3
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment - 3

Defendant’s sole argument that the current creditors’ identity was effectively disclosed 

consists in its contention that the phrase “the above referenced account has been placed with this 

office” and the phrase “National Credit Systems has been authorized to recover this debt” both 

strongly imply that National Credit Systems, Inc., is NOT the current creditor, and that therefore 

the only reasonable conclusion from reading the letter is that Encompass Management Consultants 

must be the current creditor. However, that conclusion is a fallacy. It would be entirely consistent 

with the language in the letter if “Encompass Management Consultants” were merely the original 

creditor, but that the debt had been sold by that company to an intermediate creditor, and it was 

that intermediate creditor that “authorized” NCS to collect and “placed” the debt with NCS. This 

is because the letter does not state, “The above-named creditor authorized NCS to recover this 

debt” or “The above-named creditor placed the account with this office.” It is unclear who actually 

did the placement or authorization, leaving the question up in the air of who the current creditor 

actually is. 

II. DEFENDANT DID NOT EFFECTIVELY CONVEY THE AMOUNT OF THE 

DEBT

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the argument included in Document 16, pp. 2-5 on this 

point.

 

Dated this 10th day of November, 2016.

By_s/Joshua Trigsted __

Joshua Trigsted

Trigsted Law Group, P.C.

5200 SW Meadows Rd Ste 150

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

888 595 9111 ext. 216

866 927 5826 facsimile

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 6:16-cv-00081-AA Document 20 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 3