Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Thomasson v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership
Citation: 321 F. App'x 557Docket: No. 07-56215
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 6, 2008; Federal Appellate Court
Andrew and Rebecca Thomasson appeal the district court's summary judgment favoring GC Services on claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California Information Privacy Act (CIPA), as well as the denial of their motion to assess costs. Attorney Robert Arleo also appeals sanctions imposed against him. The court reverses the summary judgment on the FDCPA claim, upholds the judgment on the CIPA claim, and reverses sanctions against Arleo, while not addressing the costs motion. The district court found insufficient evidence from the Thomassons regarding monitored calls and notification failures. However, the Thomassons provided deposition testimonies and affidavits indicating that GC Services monitored calls without notification. They also presented affidavits from eighteen others experiencing similar monitoring without notification, arguing that GC Services intentionally withheld this information to deceive consumers, violating FDCPA § 1692e, which prohibits deceptive practices in debt collection. Conversely, the court affirms the CIPA claim's dismissal, stating that only two parties were involved in the calls (the Thomassons and GC Services), and thus, there was no eavesdropping as defined under California law. Call monitoring by GC Services does not constitute a violation of CIPA. The sanctions against Arleo were vacated, as his affidavit, although poorly phrased, did not warrant sanctions in the context of a disqualification motion. The issue of cost recovery for the Thomassons is declared moot. The final disposition is partially reversed and partially affirmed, with each party bearing its own costs. The decision is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent. The Thomassons had also alleged that their calls were recorded but abandoned this claim on appeal.