# Recent and Notable Decisions — FDCPA, Reg F, and Washington
Consumer Law

Snapshot of appellate and state-supreme-court decisions that shape
pro se debt-defense strategy in Washington. Always verify current
law — citations here are for orientation and research starting
points.

## U.S. Supreme Court — FDCPA

### Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. 8, 140 S. Ct. 355 (2019)

**Holding**: FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations runs from
the date of the alleged violation, not from the date of
discovery.

**Significance**: Pro se plaintiffs must file FDCPA claims within
one year of the challenged conduct. Equitable tolling may apply
in narrow circumstances (fraud, etc.) but is not a general rule.

**Strategic note**: A state-court debt-defense counterclaim
filed within 1 year of the most recent violation preserves the
FDCPA claim. Look to the most recent collection act — not the
original default — for triggering events.

### Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, 582 U.S. 79, 137 S. Ct.
1718 (2017)

**Holding**: Debt buyers are generally **"creditors"** for FDCPA
purposes when they collect debts they own, not "debt collectors."

**Significance**: A narrowed class of defendants. However:

- Many debt buyers **still qualify** as debt collectors because
  their principal business is collection (FDCPA § 1692a(6))
- The holding was limited to the specific statutory text
- Debt buyers who **use third-party collectors** remain exposed
  through their agents' conduct

### Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. 224, 137 S. Ct.
1407 (2017)

**Holding**: Filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy on a time-
barred debt does not violate the FDCPA.

**Significance**: Limited to the bankruptcy context; does **not**
authorize filing time-barred debt collection actions in state
court. Reg F § 1006.26 now expressly prohibits such suits.

### Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 115 S. Ct. 1489 (1995)

**Holding**: The FDCPA applies to attorneys who "regularly"
engage in consumer-debt collection activity, even when that
activity consists of litigation.

**Significance**: Categorical denials that filing suit on a
consumer debt is "collection activity" subject to the FDCPA are
contrary to controlling law. Useful when a debt-buyer plaintiff's
counsel tries to distinguish litigation from collection — the
distinction does not hold for FDCPA purposes.

## Ninth Circuit — FDCPA

### Brown v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 73 F.4th 1030 (9th Cir. 2023)

**Holding**: Discrete litigation acts in a debt-collection case
can constitute **independent** FDCPA violations; each act is
assessed on its own terms, not absorbed into the overall lawsuit.

**Significance**: A counterclaim can rest on specific litigation
conduct (a filing, a communication, a discovery response) rather
than having to challenge the lawsuit as a whole. Useful with
*Heintz v. Jenkins* when the collector's conduct during the case —
not just the filing — is what violates the Act.

### Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.
2005)

**Holding**: Misrepresenting the consumer's validation rights
under § 1692g violates §§ 1692e (false / misleading
representations) and 1692g (validation notice requirements).

**Significance**: Template language telling consumers their right
to dispute has "expired," or otherwise truncating the statutory
rights, is actionable. Relevant to debt-buyer notices that
shortcut the 30-day dispute window or fold it into boilerplate
that is unclear to the least sophisticated debtor.

### Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir.
2011)

**Holding**: The "least sophisticated debtor" standard governs
interpretation of FDCPA communications.

**Significance**: A collection communication need not be false
in fact to violate § 1692e; it violates if the least
sophisticated debtor would be misled. A powerful tool for
debtors challenging ambiguous notices.

### Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir.
2010)

**Holding**: A misrepresentation of the amount of the debt, if
"immaterial," may not violate § 1692e.

**Significance**: Many circuits limit "materiality" narrowly —
don't assume an immaterial misstatement is unactionable.

### Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d 1109 (9th
Cir. 2014)

**Holding**: A false statement is material if it could influence
a consumer's decision, even if the consumer would ultimately
decide the same way.

**Significance**: Materiality is a low bar in the Ninth Circuit.

### Afewerki v. Anaya Law Grp., 868 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2017)

**Holding**: Filing a lawsuit alleging a false, inflated debt
amount violates FDCPA § 1692e.

**Significance**: Direct support for a counterclaim when the
complaint misstates principal, interest, or fees.

### Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, LLC, 989 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.
2021)

**Holding**: Filing a debt-collection lawsuit on a time-barred
debt **is a per se FDCPA violation** under §§ 1692e and 1692f.

**Significance**: Ninth Circuit clearly established prior to Reg
F; Reg F § 1006.26 now codifies this at the federal rule level.

### Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham PC, 829 F.3d 1068
(9th Cir. 2016)

**Holding**: A validation notice must be provided by **each**
debt collector who collects on the debt — not just the first.

**Significance**: Debt buyers and their successors cannot rely on
a prior collector's notice. Each must provide its own § 1692g-
compliant notice.

## Washington Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

### Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co., 166 Wn.2d 27, 204 P.3d 885 (2009)

**Holding**: The Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86) applies to
debt-collection conduct; a consumer may bring a private CPA claim
for deceptive collection practices.

**Significance**: Opens a state-law track parallel to FDCPA.
Treble damages and attorney fees available under CPA.

### Hangman Ridge Training Stables v. Safeco Title Ins., 105
Wn.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986)

**Holding**: Five-element test for Washington CPA claims.

**The elements**:
1. Unfair or deceptive act or practice
2. In trade or commerce
3. Affecting the public interest
4. Injury to the plaintiff's business or property
5. Causation

**Significance**: **Every** Washington CPA claim must satisfy
these five. Look to per se CPA violations (RCW 19.16.440) to
short-circuit element analysis — a per se violation satisfies
elements 1 through 3 by statute.

### Gray v. Suttell & Assocs., 181 Wn.2d 329, 334 P.3d 14 (2014)

**Holding**: Filing a lawsuit to collect a time-barred debt in
Washington state court violates the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

**Significance**: State-law track against debt buyers who file
stale suits. Sometimes cited in tandem with FDCPA claims to
build a unified counterclaim.

### Ainsworth v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 180 Wn. App. 52,
322 P.3d 6 (2014)

**Holding**: Unfairness under the CPA requires the conduct to be
(a) immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, (b)
injurious to the public interest, or (c) in violation of
established public policy.

**Significance**: "Unfair" is a distinct prong from "deceptive"
— broader latitude for consumer claims.

### Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, 175 Wn.2d 83, 285 P.3d
34 (2012)

**Holding**: MERS is not a "beneficiary" under the Washington
Deed of Trust Act because it does not hold the note.

**Significance**: Foundational standing case. The principle —
that the party foreclosing must hold the actual note — extends
to debt-buyer standing arguments in consumer-debt cases. A
debt-buyer who cannot produce the original instrument faces
standing challenges under parallel reasoning.

### Discover Bank v. Bridges, 154 Wn. App. 722, 226 P.3d 191
(2010)

**Holding**: Credit-card claims are written-contract claims for
SOL purposes (6 years under RCW 4.16.040), not open-account
claims (3 years).

**Significance**: Washington consumer credit-card SOL is 6 years.
Defense-side: check whether the last payment or last charge
plus 6 years predates the complaint.

### Bank of America, N.A. v. Hubert, 153 Wn.2d 102, 101 P.3d
409 (2004)

**Holding**: An assignee plaintiff must plead and prove that it
owns the specific account at issue.

**Significance**: Standing foundation for debt-buyer cases.
Generic "pool" assignments without account-specific schedules
are insufficient.

### Paris v. Steinberg & Steinberg, 87 Wn. App. 529 (1997)

**Holding**: Washington's Collection Agency Act (RCW 19.16)
licensing requirement is enforceable; unlicensed collectors
forfeit the right to sue.

**Significance**: Discovery should confirm the plaintiff's RCW
19.16 licensure. Absence is a per se CPA violation.

## District court / trial court trends (informational)

Note: trial court opinions are not binding precedent but
illustrate enforcement patterns:

### Weinstein v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, No. C17-1897RSM (W.D.
Wash. 2018), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded, No.
19-35130 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2019) (unpublished memorandum)

**Holding (W.D. Wash.)**: Partial summary judgment against
Mandarich Law Group where the firm admitted it failed to provide
the consumer with notice of its motion for default judgment as
required by court rules and failed to credit payments received.
The court found violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f and RCW
19.16.250(21).

**Significance**: Persuasive (non-binding) authority that
procedural non-compliance by a collection-law firm — not just
substantive misrepresentation — can constitute an FDCPA § 1692f
"unfair means" violation and a per se Washington CPA violation
under the Collection Agency Act. Useful when a debt-buyer's
counsel engages in a pattern of discovery stonewalling,
meet-and-confer avoidance, or rule-evasion during the case.

**Caveats**:
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part in an
  **unpublished** memorandum; Washington GR 14.1 and 9th Cir.
  Rule 36-3 limit citation of unpublished decisions — cite for
  factual persuasion, not controlling authority
- Always pull the most recent docket and ensure the version you
  rely on has not been superseded on remand

### Enforcement actions — Washington AG

- **State v. LVNV Funding** — 2015 stipulated judgment requiring
  changes to debt-buyer filing practices in Washington
- Ongoing Attorney General activity under RCW 19.86 on debt-
  buyer practices

### FDCPA class actions

- Ongoing class actions against debt buyers for Reg F validation-
  notice failures, inaccurate itemization, and time-barred-suit
  filings

## Post-judgment / CR 60 cases

### Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 161 P.3d 345 (2007)

**Holding**: Default judgments are disfavored; courts exercise
discretion liberally in favor of vacating defaults where White
v. Holm factors are met.

**Significance**: Pro se defendants should cite Little v. King
alongside White v. Holm in CR 60 motions.

### White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 438 P.2d 581 (1968)

**Holding**: Four-factor test for vacating default — prima facie
defense, excusable neglect, diligence, and absence of prejudice.

**Significance**: The dominant test. Factor one (defense) is the
most important.

### Allstate Ins. Co. v. Khani, 75 Wn. App. 317, 877 P.2d 724
(1994)

**Holding**: A void judgment must be vacated without White v.
Holm balancing.

**Significance**: Defective service = void. No discretion.

### Shepherd v. Shepherd, 139 Wn. App. 1 (2007)

**Holding**: Due diligence in service includes reasonable
follow-up; a return showing service at a wrong address is void.

**Significance**: Pro se movants to vacate should plead and
prove wrong-address or insufficient service in detail.

## Evidence — records foundation

### Washington State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons
Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993)

**Holding**: Business-records foundation under ER 803(a)(6)
requires testimony by a witness with personal knowledge of the
recordkeeping practices.

**Significance**: Standard foundation principle — affidavits by
robo-witnesses who lack knowledge of original creditor practices
do not qualify. Debt-buyer standard playbook.

### State v. Iverson, 126 Wn. App. 329 (2005)

**Holding**: Records received from a third party must be
authenticated by the recipient or by a witness with knowledge.

**Significance**: Debt-buyer bill-of-sale records received from
original creditor require additional foundation if used to
establish balance or account details.

## Federal — validation notice

### Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA,
559 U.S. 573, 130 S. Ct. 1605 (2010)

**Holding**: The FDCPA's bona fide error defense does not apply
to mistakes of law.

**Significance**: A debt collector cannot invoke "we
misinterpreted the statute" to excuse an FDCPA violation. Bona
fide error is limited to clerical / procedural errors.

## Useful for pro se pleading — cite clusters

### Standing

- *Bank of America v. Hubert*, 153 Wn.2d 102 (2004)
- *Midland Funding LLC v. Jenkins*, 18 N.E.3d 589 (Ind. Ct. App.
  2014) — persuasive
- UCC § 9-406 (notice of assignment)

### Time-barred debt

- *Gray v. Suttell & Assocs.*, 181 Wn.2d 329 (2014)
- *Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, LLC*, 989 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.
  2021)
- 12 C.F.R. § 1006.26

### Business records / affidavits

- ER 803(a)(6)
- *Fisons*, 122 Wn.2d 299 (1993)
- Defendants' discovery for custodian identity (IROG / RFP)

### CPA / FDCPA counterclaim

- *Panag v. Farmers*, 166 Wn.2d 27 (2009)
- *Hangman Ridge*, 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986)
- RCW 19.16.440 (per se CPA)
- *Afewerki*, 868 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2017)
- *Heintz v. Jenkins*, 514 U.S. 291 (1995) — FDCPA applies to
  attorneys in debt-collection litigation
- *Brown v. Transworld Sys., Inc.*, 73 F.4th 1030 (9th Cir. 2023) —
  discrete litigation acts as independent FDCPA violations

### Validation notice

- *Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham PC*, 829 F.3d 1068 (9th
  Cir. 2016) — each debt collector must send its own § 1692g(a)
  notice
- *Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.*, 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.
  2005) — misrepresenting validation rights violates §§ 1692e and
  1692g
- 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)
- 12 C.F.R. § 1006.34 (Reg F validation disclosures)

### Collection-firm procedural misconduct (persuasive)

- *Weinstein v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP*, No. C17-1897RSM (W.D.
  Wash. 2018), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded,
  No. 19-35130 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2019) (unpublished) —
  procedural non-compliance by a collection firm as § 1692f
  "unfair means" violation and per se WA CPA violation under RCW
  19.16.250(21). **Unpublished — cite cautiously under GR 14.1
  and 9th Cir. R. 36-3.**

### Vacating default

- *White v. Holm*, 73 Wn.2d 348 (1968)
- *Little v. King*, 160 Wn.2d 696 (2007)
- *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Khani*, 75 Wn. App. 317 (1994)

## Research tips

- **Washington Courts** — [courts.wa.gov](https://www.courts.wa.gov)
  — published opinions, court rules
- **Washington Supreme Court** opinions are binding statewide;
  Court of Appeals Division I, II, and III opinions are binding
  in their division but persuasive elsewhere
- **Federal 9th Circuit** — binding in Washington federal court
  and persuasive in state court on federal-law issues
- **CFPB enforcement actions** — [consumerfinance.gov](https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/) — useful for
  showing patterns and policies, not binding on courts
- **Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor** and other
  industry blogs summarize recent cases — useful for spot-check
  research
- **Google Scholar** (scholar.google.com) provides free
  case-law search including citing-reference trees

## Notes

- **Cases evolve** — always **pull the most recent version** of
  a case before citing. An older case may be distinguished,
  limited, or overruled
- **Circuit splits** — FDCPA circuit splits exist on several
  issues (e.g., materiality, least-sophisticated-debtor
  formulation); Ninth Circuit law controls in federal court in
  Washington, but state-court pro se may need to brief around
  these
- **Washington state law** generally provides **more protective**
  consumer rules than federal floor — lead with state law where
  available
- **Unpublished opinions** — cite with caution; Washington
  GR 14.1 limits citation of unpublished opinions in some
  contexts