Paul Strasters, a married person; ZADELLE STRASTERS, a married person v. Weinstein & Riley Ps

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL STRASTERS, a married person;
ZADELLE STRASTERS, a married
person,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
WEINSTEIN & RILEY PS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-35120
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03070-RHW
MEMORANDUM*
PAUL STRASTERS, a married person;
ZADELLE STRASTERS, a married
person,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WEINSTEIN & RILEY PS,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-35283
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03070-RHW
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
FILED
DEC 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, United States District Judge**
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
2
Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2012
Seattle, Washington
Before: TALLMAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, District
Judge.**
Defendant Weinstein & Riley, P.S., appeals a civil judgment for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly analyzed whether a settlement agreement between
plaintiffs Paul and Zadelle Strasters and co-defendant Wells Fargo released
Weinstein & Riley from liability. The district court properly concluded that the
settlement agreement was ambiguous as to whether it released Weinstein & Riley,
and therefore properly denied Weinstein & Riley’s motion for summary judgment
on that ground. See Hearst Comm’ns v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wash. 2d 493, 510,
115 P.3d 262 (2005). It was also not clear error for the court to find after a bench
trial that extrinsic evidence demonstrated the agreement did not release Weinstein
& Riley from liability. See Saint John’s Organic Farm v. Gem County Mosquito

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Abatement Dist., 574 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009) (reviewing district court’s
factual findings for clear error).
The district court erred, however, when it granted partial summary judgment
to plaintiffs on a prima facie FDCPA violation. The facts submitted to support the
plaintiffs’ motion, whether contested or not, did not suffice to entitle them to
judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (e). Interrogatory
responses that only demonstrated the defendant had collected some debts in the
past, or had occasionally taken a contingent fee interest in any recovery, did not
allow the court to conclude, as a matter of law, that the defendant “regularly”
collects debts under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Compare Shroyer v. Frankel, 197 F.3d
1170, 1176 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that defendant did not “regularly” collect debts
when only 7.4 percent of cases involved debt collection) with Garrett v. Derbes,
110 F.3d 317, 318 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that a defendant who attempts to collect
debts from 639 individuals in a nine-month period “regularly” collects debts).
Although the defendant failed to specifically address this issue in its
opposition brief, “summary judgment cannot be granted by default even if there is
a complete failure to respond to the motion . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory
committee’s note to 2010 Amendments; see also Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983
F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). We vacate the judgment, including the award of

-- 3 of 4 --

4
attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs, and remand to the district court, which may reopen
discovery and reconsider whether the defendant is a “debt collector” on summary
judgment or, if necessary, proceed to resolve the issue at trial. In light of our
disposition, plaintiffs’ cross-appeal is dismissed as moot.
The judgment in 12-35120 is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN
PART, and REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent
with this disposition. Each party shall bear its own costs.
No. 12-35283 is DISMISSED. Each party shall bear its own costs.

-- 4 of 4 --