Court Opinion

ID: 9407327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 16:01:03.952354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:36.961964
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                   FILED
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                        JUL 6 2023
                                                                  MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                   U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KIRK J. NYBERG,                                 No.    17-35315

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01175-PK
                                                District of Oregon,
 v.                                             Portland

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,                  ORDER
LLC,

                Defendant-Appellee.

Before: McKEOWN, MILLER, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

      The panel has voted to grant the petition for rehearing. An Amended

Memorandum Disposition is being filed simultaneously with this Order.

      The petition, Dkt. No. 101, is GRANTED. The court will accept a petition

for rehearing or rehearing en banc of the Amended Memorandum Disposition

within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 6 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIRK J. NYBERG,                                 No.    17-35315

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01175-PK

 v.
                                                AMENDED MEMORANDUM*
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                   Paul J. Papak II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 9, 2022**
                              Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, MILLER, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

      Kirk Nyberg appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims brought

under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Nyberg filed a complaint against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

(“PRA”), claiming that PRA violated the FDCPA by bringing a state-court action

against Nyberg to collect an alleged credit-card debt. The district court granted

PRA’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Nyberg’s claims.

      PRA contends that this case must be dismissed for lack of Article III

standing. We hold that Nyberg, the party invoking federal court jurisdiction, has

satisfied his burden to establish standing. See Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 932 F.3d

1264, 1270 (9th Cir. 2019). Nyberg demonstrated a concrete injury by showing that

he incurred attorney’s fees defending against PRA’s state-court action. See

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203–04 (2021); Czyzewski v. Jevic

Holding Corp., 580 U.S. 451, 464 (2017).

      Although Nyberg has standing, his claims were properly dismissed on

summary judgment. Nyberg argues that PRA committed unfair debt collection

practices by providing him false information, and by bringing an account-stated

claim against Nyberg that was legally baseless and time-barred. These arguments

fail as a matter of law.

      Nyberg’s falsity argument fails because he does not establish that the alleged

falsities were material. Even if we assume PRA made a false statement in its debt-

collection notice, Nyberg does not demonstrate that the statement of what he owed

“affected [his] ability to make intelligent decisions” about how to respond to the

                                          2
collection effort. See Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.

2010). Likewise, even if PRA’s state-court complaint falsely suggested that the

FDCPA permitted Nyberg only 60 days to object to the credit-card statement,

Nyberg does not identify how this communication was materially misleading, when

Nyberg’s credit-card holder agreement independently required that he make any

objections within 60 days.

      Nyberg’s argument that the account-stated claim was legally baseless and

therefore in violation of the FDCPA also fails. A claim for account stated was

recognized in Oregon law at the time PRA filed its complaint. See, e.g., Sunshine

Dairy v. Jolly Joan, 380 P.2d 637, 638 (Or. 1963); see also Portfolio Recovery

Assocs., LLC v. Sanders, 462 P.3d 263, 275 (Or. 2020) (en banc) (subsequently

confirming the viability of account-stated claims and citing cases). It is undisputed

that PRA acquired Nyberg’s credit-card debt, PRA demanded payment of that debt,

and Nyberg neither objected to the demand nor paid PRA. While PRA concedes

that its complaint failed to plead the necessary mutual asset for account stated, that

deficiency under Oregon law is not a per se violation of the FDCPA. See Wade v.

Reg’l Credit Ass’n, 87 F.3d 1098, 1100 (9th Cir. 1996). Nyberg does not identify

how this deficiency rendered PRA’s complaint materially false or deceptive or an

unfair or unconscionable debt-collection method. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e–f.

      Nor was PRA’s collection action time-barred. Cf. Kaiser v. Cascade Cap.,

                                           3
LLC, 989 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2021) (filing a lawsuit to collect debts that are

outside the applicable statute of limitations violates the FDCPA). Because PRA’s

action was filed in Oregon while Nyberg’s credit-card agreement was governed by

Virginia law, we apply Oregon conflict-of-laws rules to determine whether the

relevant Oregon or Virginia statute of limitations applied to the action. See

Sanders, 462 P.3d at 267, 274. Since both states have a relevant connection to the

dispute and neither party has identified a substantive conflict between Virginia and

Oregon laws governing claims for account stated, Oregon’s statute of limitations

applied to PRA’s action. See id. at 268–74. Nyberg does not contest that PRA filed

its account-stated claim within Oregon’s applicable statute of limitations period.

Nyberg’s argument that, under the concurrent remedy doctrine, Virginia’s time bar

on a breach-of-contract claim precludes an account-stated claim in Oregon is not

persuasive.

      The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

                                          4