Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Van v. Grant & Weber
Citation: 308 F. App'x 46Docket: No. 07-56122
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 28, 2008; Federal Appellate Court
Gianni Van, a debtor, appeals a district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Grant Weber, a debt collector. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) stemming from a collection letter sent by Weber, which referenced California Civil Code Section 1788.21, mandating debtors to notify creditors of changes in name, address, or employment for existing consumer credit. Van contends that the letter is misleading because Section 1788.21(b) only requires such notification if the creditor has explicitly disclosed this obligation in the original agreement. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, stating that the letter did not misstate the California law, which requires debtors to notify creditors of changes within a reasonable time, regardless of whether this was specified in the original credit agreement. The law does not stipulate that this disclosure must appear in the initial agreement, and the court declined to interpret it as such, citing precedent that prohibits altering statutory language. The letter simply explained Van's obligations under California law without using any false or misleading representations, thus not violating FDCPA provisions concerning deceptive practices, unfair means of collection, or communication that overshadows a debtor's rights to dispute a debt. Van's argument regarding preemption of state law by the FDCPA was also rejected, as there was no inconsistency between the state law requiring notification and the FDCPA’s provisions. The court concluded that the requirements for debtors to provide updated contact information do not conflict with the FDCPA, leading to an affirmation of the judgment. The decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except under specific circuit rules.