In McNall v. Credit Bureau of Josephine County, Inc., 2010 WL 3306899 (D.Or.) Judge Clarke affirmed that 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) requires a sequence before credit reporting obligations arise, but nevertheless granted summary judgment to a plaintiff against a debt collector, explaining:
In this case, as shown in the pleadings, Defendant CBJC made a conscious decision not to report Plaintiffs’ debt as disputed when it reported the debt to the credit agencies. Defendant CBJC was required to do so by the specific terms of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8). The failure to report was not an unintended factual or clerical mistake. Defendant CBJC does not cite and this court is not aware of any provision of the FDCPA or any case which holds that a debt collector need only report the debt as disputed when the debtor has not already done so. A mistake of law is not a defense. Jerman, — U.S. at —-, —-, 130 S.Ct. at 1608, 1624. ¶ Defendant CBJC also allege a general good faith defense based upon 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(e) which provides: “No provision of this section imposing any liability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the Commission, notwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, such opinion is amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.” Defendant cites to the following language from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Staff Commentary to the FDCPA section 1692e(8) (Def. Opp’n at 3): “1. Disputed debt. If a debt collector knows that a debt is disputed by the consumer, either from receipt of written notice (section 809) or other means, and reports it to a credit bureau, he must report it as disputed. 2. Post-report dispute. When a debt collector learns of a dispute after reporting the debt to a credit bureau, the dispute need not also be reported. FTC Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/commentary.shtm.” ¶ The cited commentary simply confirms that, if known to the debt collector at the time, a debt must be reported as disputed when it is reported to a credit agency. However, if the debt collector only later learns that the debt is disputed, it does not need to report it to the credit agency. This is not the situation in this case. Defendant CBJC knew Plaintiffs disputed the debt when it reported the debt to the credit agencies. Defendant simply chose not to report the debt as disputed on the erroneous belief that it was relieved of its obligation because Plaintiffs had already reported the debt as disputed to the same agencies. Therefore, even assuming the cited FTC Staff Commentary applies, it does not provide Defendant CBJC a defense in this case.