Author Feed Link

Tomio Narita

Simmonds & Narita LLP

Tomio is a partner of Simmonds & Narita LLP,, a California law firm specializing in defending claims arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Rosenthal Act. He has served as lead counsel defending scores of class actions and representative actions in state and federal courts in California and across the country. A member of the California Bar, Tomio is also admitted to the United States Supreme Court, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals and all District Courts of California. Tomio is regularly invited to speak at collection industry events, discussing issues arising under the FCRA and FDCPA. He is a member of the American Bar Association (Vice Chair, Debt Collection Practices and Bankruptcy Subcommittee of Consumer Financial Services Committee), ACA International (Chair of the MAP Committee, 2009-10), the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys (Associate Member; Member of the Amicus Committee), and the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Recent Posts


The “Least Sophisticated Debtor” Is Getting More Sophisticated, And Has An Improved Memory Too

When collectors get sued in an FDCPA action, they face a steep uphill battle. Courts apply the very pro-consumer “least sophisticated debtor” standard when evaluating a collector’s communications, and most violations of the Act are “strict liability.” However, courts have gradually been demanding more and have rejected suits based on hyper-technicalities.


Consent Order Compliance: Navigating The CFPB’s Unofficial “Rules” Governing Debt Collection

The CFPB has entered into consent orders with major creditors, debt buyers, and law firms during the past year relating to key areas of their collection practices.  The consent orders impose significant new requirements relating to data integrity, dispute handling, debt substantiation, debt sales, affidavit practices, and litigation practices.  The orders are not formal “rules” […]

Is Your Envelope “Benign” Under The FDCPA?

There has been a lot of litigation relating to envelopes recently, but section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA, which regulates collection envelopes, is not new. It has been a source of frustration for collectors for decades. Fortunately, some courts have recognized that a strict application of section 1692f(8) may lead to absurd results, and have held that “benign language” on an envelope does not violate the FDCPA. Unfortunately, the word “benign” can be VERY slippery.

How to Avoid FDCPA Claims of Overshadowing

Section 1692g of the FDCPA says collectors must provide a notice to consumers within five days of initial communication stating the amount of the debt, the name of the current creditor, and explaining the consumer’s right to dispute the debt and to obtain verification. You might assume that a collector can comply with that section by simply copying the language from the statute into their initial notice to consumers. Not exactly.

When is a Lawyer or Law Firm “Regularly” Collecting Debts Under the FDCPA?

Beginning in 1995, when the Supreme Court issued Heintz v. Jenkins, lawyers have known that if they seek to collect consumer debts for clients – even when doing so through litigation – they might qualify as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. But how often must a lawyer or a law firm engage in consumer debt collection activities before they are subject to the Act?

New Debt Buyer Law May Decrease Communication, Increase Litigation Between ARM Firms and Consumers

A new law in California focused on debt buyers imposes a series of new requirements on purchasers that start before any collection letter is sent to a consumer, and that continue throughout the collection process, including during any collection litigation.

Although the law was designed to protect consumers and increase the information available to them, a likely result will be to decrease the level of communication between debt buyers and consumers, while increasing the amount of collection litigation.