9th Cir.;
12-56783
The court of appeals reversed a district court judgment and remanded the action for further proceedings. The court held that a plaintiff under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act had statutory and Article III standing to assert claims based on collection letters that he did not receive where he alleged violation of his statutory right not to be the target of misleading debt collection communications. The court held further that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment under the Act where letters sent by a collection agency and a law firm were materially misleading because they incorrectly identified the original creditor on the plaintiff’s consumer purchase loan.
