## Facts

- In 1990, Donald Bitah co-signed an automobile installment-sale contract in Arizona; the vehicle was later repossessed for nonpayment and resold in Arizona.
- The account was assigned to Global Collection Services, Inc. (Global), a collection company.
- Michael C. Norton, an attorney licensed in California, was a full-time employee of Global and admitted he was a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
- In 1989, Norton drafted several form (“dunning”) collection letters for Global. The letters were routinely sent on Norton’s attorney letterhead.
- Norton authorized Global’s collectors to send letters on his letterhead to California addresses without seeking Norton’s approval and without Norton reviewing the debtor’s file; he did not receive copies of the letters or logs showing when letters were sent under his name.
- In September 1993, Global first mailed a collection letter to Bitah’s Arizona address on Global’s own letterhead.
- Later in September 1993, at Global’s request, Norton reviewed Bitah’s file and authorized a letter to be sent to Bitah in Arizona on Norton’s letterhead; the letter was returned as undeliverable.
- More than a year later, Global collectors mailed two additional form collection letters on Norton’s letterhead to Bitah at a New Mexico address.
- The New Mexico letters did not include the validation notice and related disclosures required by the FDCPA.
- Norton did not monitor how collectors used his letterhead, did not keep a file on Bitah, did not see the New Mexico letters before they were sent, and had no direct role in generating or mailing those letters.
- Donald and Loretta Bitah sued Global, Norton, and a Global collector (Tony Reed) for FDCPA violations. Global closed its offices during the case and defaulted.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney who supplies form collection letters and permits a collection agency to send them on his letterhead without attorney review can be liable under the FDCPA for letters mailed to a consumer.
2. Whether Norton could avoid liability by claiming he only authorized use of his letterhead and form letters for California debtors, not for debtors in other states.
3. Whether the New Mexico letters violated the FDCPA, including the validation-notice requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and prohibitions on false or misleading representations under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.
4. Whether Loretta Bitah had an actionable FDCPA claim on the summary-judgment record.

## Decision

- The court considered plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and Norton’s counter-motion for summary judgment.
- Norton’s motion for summary judgment was **granted as to Loretta Bitah** and **denied as to Donald Bitah**.
- Donald Bitah’s motion for partial summary judgment was **granted**, establishing FDCPA liability based on the collection letters sent on Norton’s attorney letterhead.
- The court rejected Norton’s attempt to avoid responsibility for the New Mexico mailings by pointing to an internal, claimed limitation that his letterhead was authorized only for California accounts.
- The court treated the New Mexico letters’ failure to include required § 1692g disclosures, and their misleading use of attorney letterhead without meaningful attorney involvement, as FDCPA violations.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney who regularly engages in debt collection (or admits “debt collector” status) may be subject to the FDCPA for collection communications sent in his name.
- A collection letter on attorney letterhead can communicate that an attorney has reviewed the debtor’s file and is directing collection activity; using attorney letterhead without meaningful attorney review may be misleading under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.
- The FDCPA requires that a debt collector provide the consumer specific validation information in the initial communication or within five days, including dispute and verification rights. Letters that omit this information can violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.
- A debt collector who authorizes others to send letters on his letterhead, and fails to maintain controls over how and where the letters are sent, may be liable for resulting FDCPA violations even if the mailing decisions were made by non-lawyers.
- Summary judgment is proper where the material facts are not genuinely disputed and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the court may grant judgment for one plaintiff while dismissing another plaintiff’s claim when the record supports different outcomes.

## Conclusion

In *Bitah v. Global Collection Services, Inc.*, the federal district court held that attorney-employee Michael Norton could be liable under the FDCPA when Global’s collectors sent form letters on his attorney letterhead without meaningful attorney involvement and without the required validation notices, granting summary judgment for Donald Bitah on liability while granting summary judgment against Loretta Bitah on her separate claim.


Bitah v. Global Collection Services, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 618 (1997)