6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9 ANTONIO JOHNSON AND OLIVIA Case No. C20-573RSM 10 PULOKA, Plaintiffs, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12 13 v.
14 COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY, LLC dba GENESIS CREDIT MANAGEMENT, LLC, 15 16 Defendant.
17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 19 A bench trial was held in this matter on May 25, 2021, with virtual live testimony from 20 Plaintiffs and exhibits submitted by both parties. The Court had previously found Defendant 21 Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC dba Genesis Credit Management, LLC liable for violations of 22 the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f and the 23 Washington Collection Agency Act (“WCAA”). Dkt. #12. 24 25 The key issues of law at trial were: 1) what damages are available to Plaintiffs Antonio 26 Johnson and Olivia Puloka under the FDCPA and 2) what damages are available under the 27 Washington Consumer Protection Act (Title 19.86 RCW) for violation of the WCAA. 28 II. CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES 1 2 “In an action tried on the facts without a jury... the court must find the facts specially 3 and state its conclusions of law separately.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). The trial court is 4 empowered to judge the credibility of the witnesses. See Spokane Arcade, Inc. v. City of 5 Spokane, 75 F.3d 663, 665 (9th Cir. 1996); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 105 Fed. Appx. 892, 6 893 at n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575, 7 8 84 L. Ed. 2d 518, 105 S. Ct. 1504 (1985)). 9 The Court specifically finds that witnesses Antonio Johnson and Olivia Puloka were 10 credible. Their answers during testimony were complete and appeared honest, and their 11 observed demeanor leads the Court to conclude that they were truthful about their own 12 13 experiences and observations. 15 The Court incorporates by reference the facts as detailed in its Order Granting 16 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. #12, and the Admitted Facts in the 17 Pretrial Order submitted by Plaintiffs. See Dkt. #22. The following additional findings of fact 18 19 are made by the Court and are based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented at trial 20 and the above credibility analysis. 21 1. Plaintiffs Antonio Johnson and Olivia Puloka are natural persons residing in the 22 state of Washington. Plaintiffs are consumers as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) 23 and debtors and defined by RCW 16.16.100(8). 24 25 2. Defendant Columbia Debt Recovery is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. 26 §1692a(6) and a collection agency as defined by RCW 19.16.100(4). 27 28 3. Defendant attempted to collect amounts in excess of what was owed on multiple 1 2 occasions, including the following: 3 a. A November 26, 2019, phone call with Antonio Johnson. 4 b. A November 27, 2019, phone call with Antonio Johnson. 5 c. A December 2, 2019, phone call with Antonio Johnson. 6 d. A January 10, 2020, letter sent to Plaintiffs. 7 8 e. Repeated and ongoing credit reporting of an inflated balance to both 9 Plaintiffs’ credit. 10 4. In these calls and letters, Defendant made numerous false and misleading statements 11 in an attempt to collect a debt, including but not limited to: stating that a judgment 12 13 had been entered for the alleged debt, that Plaintiffs’ wages would be garnished, that 14 Plaintiffs had been evicted, and that various charges and fees were legitimate. 15 Defendant had no basis to support those statements, and has admitted that they were 16 made in error. 17 5. Given the facts of this case as stated above and stated in incorporated filings, 18 19 Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages for the amounts that they spent out of pocket 20 in consulting with an attorney to determine their legal rights and responsibilities. 21 Such actual damages are in the amount of $40.00, as determined both by Plaintiffs’ 22 testimony and by the uncontroverted evidence submitted on summary judgment. 23 Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages in the form of emotional distress totaling 24 25 $30,000 each. This number is based on the testimony of Plaintiffs, about 26 themselves and their observations of each other, explaining how Defendant’s 27 actions repeatedly harmed them both by causing stress, anxiety, feelings of 28 helplessness and hopelessness, and other forms of general emotional distress. This 1 2 emotional distress occurred at a particularly vulnerable time for both Plaintiffs, as 3 they were experiencing the joy and challenges of raising a new baby. 4 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and this dispute under federal law. 6 2. The Court adopts its previous legal rulings as detailed in its Order Granting Plaintiffs’ 7 8 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. #12, as conclusions of law. In that Order, 9 the Court ruled that Defendant’s conduct violated multiple sections of the FDCPA, 10 including 15 U.S.C. 1692 §§ 1692e, e(2), e(8), 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Id. Additionally, 11 this Court ruled that Defendant violated RCW 19.16.250(21) by attempting to collect 12 13 amounts not owed. Id. 14 3. Defendant argued at trial that Plaintiffs must pass the significantly higher requirements 15 of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under state law to recover 16 emotional distress damages under the FDCPA. See Dkt. #28 (citing Genschorck v. 17 Suttell & Hammer, P.S., No. 12-CV-0615-TOR, 2013 WL 6118678, at *4–5 (E.D. 18 19 Wash. Nov. 21, 2013)). Defendant misreads this case. See, e.g, Russell v. GC Servs. 20 Ltd. P'ship, 476 F. Supp. 3d 1097, 1103 (E.D. Wash. 2020) (“In Genschorck v. Sutttell 21 & Hammer, P.S., a different judge in this district concluded that plaintiffs need not meet 22 the heightened, state law IIED standard in order to prove emotional distress damages 23 under the FDCPA…. The Court is persuaded by the reasoning in Genschorck and can 24 25 find no reason to apply a heightened standard for actual damages under the FDCPA.”). 26 Plaintiffs did not need to meet the intentional infliction of emotional distress standard to 27 recover in this FDCPA, WCAA/WPA case. 28 4. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in this case under the Fair Debt Collection 1 2 Practices Act (“FDCPA”), including emotional distress. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; 3 McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 957 (9th Cir. 4 2011). 5 5. Emotional distress is established though the testimony of each Plaintiff about 6 themselves and their observations of each other. Expert testimony is not a requirement. 7 8 6.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9 ANTONIO JOHNSON AND OLIVIA Case No. C20-573RSM 10 PULOKA, Plaintiffs, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12 13 v.
14 COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY, LLC dba GENESIS CREDIT MANAGEMENT, LLC, 15 16 Defendant.
17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 19 A bench trial was held in this matter on May 25, 2021, with virtual live testimony from 20 Plaintiffs and exhibits submitted by both parties. The Court had previously found Defendant 21 Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC dba Genesis Credit Management, LLC liable for violations of 22 the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f and the 23 Washington Collection Agency Act (“WCAA”). Dkt. #12. 24 25 The key issues of law at trial were: 1) what damages are available to Plaintiffs Antonio 26 Johnson and Olivia Puloka under the FDCPA and 2) what damages are available under the 27 Washington Consumer Protection Act (Title 19.86 RCW) for violation of the WCAA. 28 II. CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES 1 2 “In an action tried on the facts without a jury... the court must find the facts specially 3 and state its conclusions of law separately.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). The trial court is 4 empowered to judge the credibility of the witnesses. See Spokane Arcade, Inc. v. City of 5 Spokane, 75 F.3d 663, 665 (9th Cir. 1996); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 105 Fed. Appx. 892, 6 893 at n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575, 7 8 84 L. Ed. 2d 518, 105 S. Ct. 1504 (1985)). 9 The Court specifically finds that witnesses Antonio Johnson and Olivia Puloka were 10 credible. Their answers during testimony were complete and appeared honest, and their 11 observed demeanor leads the Court to conclude that they were truthful about their own 12 13 experiences and observations. 15 The Court incorporates by reference the facts as detailed in its Order Granting 16 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. #12, and the Admitted Facts in the 17 Pretrial Order submitted by Plaintiffs. See Dkt. #22. The following additional findings of fact 18 19 are made by the Court and are based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented at trial 20 and the above credibility analysis. 21 1. Plaintiffs Antonio Johnson and Olivia Puloka are natural persons residing in the 22 state of Washington. Plaintiffs are consumers as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) 23 and debtors and defined by RCW 16.16.100(8). 24 25 2. Defendant Columbia Debt Recovery is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. 26 §1692a(6) and a collection agency as defined by RCW 19.16.100(4). 27 28 3. Defendant attempted to collect amounts in excess of what was owed on multiple 1 2 occasions, including the following: 3 a. A November 26, 2019, phone call with Antonio Johnson. 4 b. A November 27, 2019, phone call with Antonio Johnson. 5 c. A December 2, 2019, phone call with Antonio Johnson. 6 d. A January 10, 2020, letter sent to Plaintiffs. 7 8 e. Repeated and ongoing credit reporting of an inflated balance to both 9 Plaintiffs’ credit. 10 4. In these calls and letters, Defendant made numerous false and misleading statements 11 in an attempt to collect a debt, including but not limited to: stating that a judgment 12 13 had been entered for the alleged debt, that Plaintiffs’ wages would be garnished, that 14 Plaintiffs had been evicted, and that various charges and fees were legitimate. 15 Defendant had no basis to support those statements, and has admitted that they were 16 made in error. 17 5. Given the facts of this case as stated above and stated in incorporated filings, 18 19 Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages for the amounts that they spent out of pocket 20 in consulting with an attorney to determine their legal rights and responsibilities. 21 Such actual damages are in the amount of $40.00, as determined both by Plaintiffs’ 22 testimony and by the uncontroverted evidence submitted on summary judgment. 23 Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages in the form of emotional distress totaling 24 25 $30,000 each. This number is based on the testimony of Plaintiffs, about 26 themselves and their observations of each other, explaining how Defendant’s 27 actions repeatedly harmed them both by causing stress, anxiety, feelings of 28 helplessness and hopelessness, and other forms of general emotional distress. This 1 2 emotional distress occurred at a particularly vulnerable time for both Plaintiffs, as 3 they were experiencing the joy and challenges of raising a new baby. 4 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and this dispute under federal law. 6 2. The Court adopts its previous legal rulings as detailed in its Order Granting Plaintiffs’ 7 8 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. #12, as conclusions of law. In that Order, 9 the Court ruled that Defendant’s conduct violated multiple sections of the FDCPA, 10 including 15 U.S.C. 1692 §§ 1692e, e(2), e(8), 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Id. Additionally, 11 this Court ruled that Defendant violated RCW 19.16.250(21) by attempting to collect 12 13 amounts not owed. Id. 14 3. Defendant argued at trial that Plaintiffs must pass the significantly higher requirements 15 of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under state law to recover 16 emotional distress damages under the FDCPA. See Dkt. #28 (citing Genschorck v. 17 Suttell & Hammer, P.S., No. 12-CV-0615-TOR, 2013 WL 6118678, at *4–5 (E.D. 18 19 Wash. Nov. 21, 2013)). Defendant misreads this case. See, e.g, Russell v. GC Servs. 20 Ltd. P'ship, 476 F. Supp. 3d 1097, 1103 (E.D. Wash. 2020) (“In Genschorck v. Sutttell 21 & Hammer, P.S., a different judge in this district concluded that plaintiffs need not meet 22 the heightened, state law IIED standard in order to prove emotional distress damages 23 under the FDCPA…. The Court is persuaded by the reasoning in Genschorck and can 24 25 find no reason to apply a heightened standard for actual damages under the FDCPA.”). 26 Plaintiffs did not need to meet the intentional infliction of emotional distress standard to 27 recover in this FDCPA, WCAA/WPA case. 28 4. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in this case under the Fair Debt Collection 1 2 Practices Act (“FDCPA”), including emotional distress. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; 3 McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 957 (9th Cir. 4 2011). 5 5. Emotional distress is established though the testimony of each Plaintiff about 6 themselves and their observations of each other. Expert testimony is not a requirement. 7 8 6. Based on the facts and circumstances in this case, including Defendant’s continued 9 refusal to accept that it is liable under the FDCPA despite the Court’s prior ruling and 10 continued adverse credit reporting as to Ms. Puloka, Plaintiffs are entitled to the 11 maximum statutory damages under the FDCPA in the amount of $1,000 per Plaintiff. 12 13 See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A). 14 7. Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages under the Washington Collection Agency Act 15 (“WCAA”) and Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). RCW 19.16.440 and RCW 19.86 et 16 seq. Such actual damages, $40, were incurred by Mr. Johnson when he paid for parking 17 and gas in seeking an attorney. 18 19 8. Based on the facts and circumstances in this case, treble damages are appropriate in 20 pursuant to RCW 19.86.090 to deter and punish defendant from further violations. 21 Mason v. Mortg. Am., Inc., 114 Wn.2d 842, 855 (1990). The amount of damages 22 subject to trebling are, as stated above, $40, which is hereby trebled to a total of $120. 23 9. Plaintiffs are entitled to costs of suit together with reasonable attorney’s fees under the 24 25 FDCPA as well as the WCAA/CPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; RCW 19.16.440; RCW 26 19.86.090. Plaintiffs shall file a petition for fees and costs, which will be heard after 27 this case is closed below. 28 10. Having fully considered the evidence presented at trial, the exhibits admitted into 1 2 evidence, and the argument of counsel, and being fully advised, the Court finds in favor 3 of Plaintiff Johnson in the total amount of $30,120. The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff 4 Puloka in the total amount of $30,000. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 5 11. This matter is now CLOSED. 6
7 8 It is so ORDERED. 9 10 DATED this 17th day of June, 2021. 11
12 13 A 14 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28