REESE v. CAC SERVICES, INC.

Full title: WILLARD REESE, Plaintiff, v. CAC SERVICES, INC., dba COMMERCIAL ADJUSTMENT…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

Date published: Aug 24, 2011

3:10-CV-00766-BR (D. Or. Aug. 24, 2011)

Opinion

3:10-CV-00766-BR.

August 24, 2011

JOSHUA R. TRIGSTED, Trigsted Law Group, P.C., Lake Oswego, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

JEFFREY I. HASSON, Davenport Hasson, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District JudgePage 2

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Willard Reese's Motion (#51) in Limine to Admit Testimony of Plaintiff Regarding Defendant's Garnishment of Plaintiff and Actual Damages Suffered Therefrom. For the reasons that follow and based on the record developed at the Pretrial Conference, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

On August 19, 2011, the Court held a Pretrial Conference in this matter. At the conference, Defendant objected to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine in which Plaintiff sought leave to testify at trial as to the emotional distress that Plaintiff contends he suffered as a result of Defendant's attempt to garnish Plaintiff's bank account. Defendant, however, did not cite any case that supported its objection to this evidence. After considering the argument of counsel, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion and advised the parties that Plaintiff would be allowed to testify as to any emotional distress he experienced as a result of Defendant's attempt to garnish Plaintiff's bank account.

The Court notes the Ninth Circuit has not determined whether emotional-distress damages are recoverable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and the district courts are split on the issue. See Healey v. Trans Union LLC, No. C09-0956JLR, 2011 WL 1900149, at *11 (W.D. Wash. May 18, 2011) (citing Riley v. Giguiere, 631 F. Supp. 2d 1295, 1315 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing cases)). In Healey the court concluded "`actual damages' under the FDCPA include[] emotional distress damages." Id. The court reasoned the FDCPA damages provision is "virtually identical to that of the FCRA" and the "Ninth Circuit has held that `actual damages' under the FCRA includes recovery for `emotional distress and humiliation.'" Id. (quoting Guimond v. Trans Union Cred. Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9^th Cir. 1995)).

This Court adopts the reasoning of Healey and reiterates its ruling that Plaintiff may seek to prove that he sustained emotional-distress damages as a result of Defendant's alleged violation of the FDCPA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2011.