Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fangsrud Von Esch v. Asset Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

August 22, 2019

JOSEPH and RENNY FANGSRUD VON ESCH, Plaintiffs,
v.
ASSET SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER

          Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties' competing Motions in Limine [Dkt. #s 92 & 93], in advance of a jury trial. The Court dismissed the case on summary judgment and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Ninth Circuit's opinion is the road map for the trial of this case, and it addressed many of the issues raised in the motions.

         This is not a complicated or particularly compelling case, factually or legally, and the Court has previously expressed its frustration that it has been litigated as it has, as long as it has been. The Motions in Limine, and the parties' inability to agree on almost anything (except that they cannot agree on anything), are only the most recent examples of their intransigence.

         The Ninth Circuit reversed this Court's dismissal of Fangsrud Von Esch's claims on summary judgment. Its opinion was cryptic but it necessarily implied that the FDCPA and CPA claims were viable. Its ruling that a jury should decide the core factual issues was relatively clear. The primary issues are: (1) did Asset violate the FDCPA (or the CPA); (2) can Asset establish the bona fide error affirmative defense, and (3) if Asset cannot, what are Fangsrud Von Esch's damages?

         This is what the trial will be about, and the evidence and argument should inform these issues. The parties will tell their respective stories, the Court will instruct the jury, and the jury will decide. The parties' contempt for each other-and the Court's distaste for this irrational litigation-will not influence the jury's decision.

         A. Plaintiff's Motions to Exclude:

         1. Results of plaintiff's claim against Legacy.

         GRANTED, in part. The fact that Legacy was involved, and sued, is part of the factual story. The Court will not whitewash this petty story to help either side not look as bad in the jury's eyes as the whole truth might make them look. But the detailed procedural history (including the manner in which Legacy was dismissed, and the appeal) is not helpful and neither party will waste the jury's or the Court's time on this (or any other) side issue.

         2. Defendant's reputation.

         GRANTED.

         3. Defendants' state of mind.

         DENIED. Plaintiff concedes that “unintentional” is an element of the affirmative defense that will be the focus of the trial. Evidence related to that intent is relevant, and likely admissible.

         4. Clark County Case 15C683-5.

         RESERVED.

         5. Other debts.

         DENIED. Plaintiff cannot claim that Asset's efforts to collect this debt caused her emotional distress, while simultaneously precluding the defense from pointing out that she had other emotional stressors, including other debts. Nor can she claim damage to her “creditworthiness” without letting the defense tell the jury the rest of her creditworthiness story.

         6. Witnesses lacking personal knowledge.

         RESERVED.

         7. Witnesses not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.