9. Barbara A. Radi, v. Bennett Law Offices, Michael B. Bennett

NOTICE:  [*1]  RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.  

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reported in Table Case Format at: 117 F.3d 1426, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 24312.  

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-95-02741-PGR. Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding.  

DISPOSITION: Case REMANDED.

  COUNSEL: For BARBARA A. RADI, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant: Floyd W. Bybee, Esq., Tempe, AZ. Daniel A. Edelman, Esq., EDELMAN & COMBS, Chicago, IL.  

For BENNETT LAW OFFICES, a Utah Law Firm, Defendant - Appellee: Stanley M. Hammerman, Esq., HAMMERMAN & HULTGREN, Phoenix, AZ. For MICHAEL B. BENNETT, Defendant - Appellee: Stanley M. Hammerman, Esq., (See above).  

JUDGES: Before: Goodwin, D.W. Nelson, and Trott, Circuit Judges.  

OPINION:

MEMORANDUM *  

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  

Barbara A. Radi appeals the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim,  [*2]  pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), of her action against Bennett Law Offices and Michael B. Bennett. Radi alleged that Defendants' actions in attempting to collect a dishonored check violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § §  1692-1692o. The district court dismissed the complaint on two grounds: 1) because Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss, and 2) because it concluded that a dishonored check is not a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA.

We recently held that the FDCPA is not limited to the collection of debts arising out of credit transactions, that a dishonored check is a "debt" within the meaning of the FDCPA, and therefore that the FDCPA does apply to the collection of dishonored checks.  Charles v. Lundgren & Associates, 119 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 1997). In light of our opinion in Charles, we remand this case to the district court for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss.