UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Inre: 

Francis Anthony Todor, 

Deborah Ranee Todor, 

Debtors. 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CREDIT BUREAU OF JOSEPHINE 

COUNTY, 

Plaintiff/ Appellee, 

v. 

DEBORAH R. TODOR, 

Defendant/ Appellant. 

AIKEN, Judge: 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01120-AA 

Bankr. Case. No. 11-64859-fra 

Adv. Proc. No. 14-06195-fra 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Defendant/appellant Deborah Todor appeals a ruling of the United States Bankruptcy 

Court. The Bankruptcy Comi found that plaintiff/appellee Credit Bureau of Josephine County, 

Inc. (Credit Bureau) did not engage in deceptive and misleading communications by omitting 

"Inc." from its name in the caption of a small claims complaint filed against Todor. The decision 

of the bankruptcy court is affomed. 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01120-AA Document 7 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 4
STANDARD 

The bankruptcy court's findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. § 8013. Issues of law are reviewed de nova, as are mixed questions of law and 

fact. In re Bammer, 131 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir. 1997); In re Jodoin, 209 B.R. 132, 135 (9th Cir. 

B.A.P. 1997). 

DISCUSSION 

The only issue raised in this bankruptcy appeal is whether a small claims complaint filed 

against Todor by Credit Bureau constituted a false or misleading representation under the 

Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692e(l) and (9). The 

Bankruptcy Court found that it did not, and Todor appeals that finding. ER 43-44. 

The small claims complaint served on Todor indicated that the proceeding was filed "In 

the Circuit Couti of the State of Oregon for Josephine County Small Claims Depaiiment." The 

plaintiff is named as "Credit Bureau of Josephine County," rather than "Credit Bureau of 

Josephine County, Inc.," the Credit Bureau's full corporate name. The complaint includes the 

paiiies' respective addresses and asserts that Todor owes "the sum of $275.50 ... for goods and 

services to Ear, Nose & Throat Associates." ER 46. Todor argues that the omission of "Inc." 

from Credit Bureau's name in the caption and elsewhere on the complaint created the false 

impression that Credit Bureau was associated with the governmental entity of Josephine County, 

particularly when complaint did not identify Credit Bureau as a debt collection agency. 

Initially, I find interesting Todor's declaration that she was misled by the small claims 

complaint. Todor declares that she was confused "about who the complaint was from" and 

thought it might be "from the county." ER 68. However, Todor admits she previously had 

received communications from Credit Bureau when it attempted to collect the same debt, and 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01120-AA Document 7 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 4
such communication clearly identified Credit Bureau as a debt collection agency. ER 67-68, 73, 

79. Todor does not explain why she would become confused by a subsequent small claims 

complaint filed by the same entity attempting to collect the same debt. Regardless, I find no 

violation of the FDCPA. The relevant statutory provisions provide: 

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or 

means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general 

application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: 

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is 

vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, 

including the use of any badge, uniform or facsimile thereof. 

(9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates 

or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved 

by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or 

which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or 

approval. 

15 U.S.C.A. § 1692e(l) and (9). 

Aside from Credit Bureau's use of "Josephine County" in its corporate name, the small 

claims complaint in no way implies that the Credit Bureau is affiliated with the governmental 

subdivision of Josephine County. I do not find that the mere omission of "Inc." from Credit 

Bureau's name in the small claims complaint to be deceptive or misleading as a matter of law, 

when the complaint otherwise included the approved attributes of Credit Bureau's corporate 

name and indicated that Credit Bureau was pursuing a debt owed to an original creditor. 

Even if the omission of "Inc." could be construed as slightly misleading, it was not a 

material misrepresentation that affected Todor's ability to "intelligently choose" her response to 

the complaint. Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., 755 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2014), as 

amended on denial ofreh'g and reh'g en bane (Oct. 31, 2014). Todor was required to respond to 

the complaint regardless of who filed it. Moreover, the complaint provided Credit Bureau's 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01120-AA Document 7 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 4
correct (if incomplete) name and address, and it identified the original creditor and the amount of 

the debt. Quite simply, the small claims complaint contains no "genuinely misleading statements 

that may frustrate a consumer's ability to intelligently choose his or her response." Id. (quoting 

Donohue v. Quick collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010)). Finally, the small claims 

complaint was authentic and was not "falsely represented" to be authorized by Josephine County 

or the Circuit Court. 

Plaintiff nonetheless relies on Tourgeman to support her argument. However, in that case, 

several letters and a court complaint completely misidentified the original loan creditor and 

included an incorrect account number. Id at 1119, 1123. Here, Credit Bureau did not misidentify 

itself or the original creditor, and it provided relevant info1mation regarding the original debt, 

thus apprising Todor of the relevant circumstances already known to her. Given these facts, 

along with Todor's prior communications with Credit Bureau, the omission of"Inc." from Credit 

Bureau's name in the complaint was nothing more than a "technical falsehood" that misled "no 

one." Id at 1119 (quoting Donohue, 592 F.3d at 1034). 

CONCLUSION 

The decision of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this ::Z °f day of March, 2016. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01120-AA Document 7 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 4