Bitah v. Global Collection Services, Inc.

In 1990 Donald Bitah (plaintiff) cosigned a car installment-sale contract in Arizona. The car was later repossessed for nonpayment. Michael Norton (defendant) was an attorney licensed in California and employed by Global Collection Services, Inc. (Global) (defendant). In 1989 Norton wrote several form collection letters for Global. It was not clear whether the form letters provided the information required by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (the act). These form letters were routinely sent on Norton’s attorney letterhead. Norton authorized Global’s debt collectors to send these letters on Norton’s letterhead to any address in California without seeking Norton’s approval. Global’s debt collectors were also authorized to send out computer-generated collection letters on Norton’s letterhead to California addresses without Norton having to review the debtors’ files. Norton did not receive copies of the letters that were sent and did not receive lists showing that the letters had gone out under his name. In 1993 Global sent a letter to Bitah’s Arizona address on its own letterhead. A few weeks later, Norton reviewed the Bitah file at Global’s request and authorized Global to send a letter to Bitah in Arizona on Norton’s letterhead. This letter was returned by the postal service. Over a year later, Global sent Bitah two more form letters on Norton’s letterhead to a New Mexico address. The New Mexico letters did not provide the information required by the act. The Global debt collectors decided to mail these letters. Norton did not monitor how the collectors were using his attorney letterhead. Norton did not maintain a file on Bitah and did not see the letters that were sent to Bitah in New Mexico. Norton had no direct involvement in generating the letters. Bitah sued Norton and Global for violations of the act, and Bitah moved for summary judgment. Norton argued that he only authorized Global to send his form letters on his letterhead to California debtors, not to debtors in other jurisdictions. Global closed its offices and defaulted in the present case.