Author Feed Link
avatar

Tomio Narita

Simmonds & Narita LLP

Tomio is a partner of Simmonds & Narita LLP, www.snllp.com, 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

man-reading-letter

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.

The Law - smlp.co.uk

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-rules

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.

wendy-wheresbeef1

Where’s The Beef? The FTC 2013 Report On Debt Buyers

The lengthy report describes a comprehensive study conducted by the FTC over a three-year period using data obtained from the nation’s largest debt buyers. Many will view the Report as another chance to engage in debt-buyer bashing, which has become a favorite pastime for mainstream media and consumer advocates. But a close reading reveals how wrong this report is.

erase-debt

FDCPA Violation Claims Supported Only by Material Disputes

When a consumer disputes their debt, an accepted and conservative practice is for the data furnisher to promptly report the dispute to the consumer reporting agencies. But under what circumstances will the failure to report a dispute give rise to a violation of section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA?

For example, what if a consumer or their attorney simply calls or writes and states, “I dispute this,” without providing the collector with any substantive information regarding the basis for the dispute? Does the collector violate section 1692e(8) if it fails to report that “dispute” to the consumer reporting agencies? The answer must be “no.”

attorney privilege

Can the CFPB Make Debt Collectors Reveal their Privileged Documents?

Does the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have the power to tell debt collectors to turn over their attorney-client privileged communications? The answer may depend on who you ask. The CFPB certainly seems to think it does, while federal courts tell a different story. In our top story, we check in with Tomio Narita, who goes into this topic at greater length.

law-gavel-scales

The Limits on Direct and Vicarious Liability Under the FDCPA

Consumers and their attorneys are constantly seeking to expand the pool of potential FDCPA defendants using principles of vicarious liability. Debt buyers are being sued based on the conduct of their agencies and law firms. Lawyers and agency owners are being sued based on the conduct of their clients and their collectors. Even original creditors, who are not subject to the FDCPA, are being drawn into FDCPA litigation under various theories of recovery.

What are the limits of vicarious liability under the FDCPA? How can debt collectors avoid liability for the conduct of others?