Case Explained: NOLAN V. PORTER KIAKONA KOPPER, LLP

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

Docket: 1:23-cv-00271-SASP-WRP

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Porter Kiakona Kopper, LLP on Plaintiff-Appellant Maureen Nolan’s claims arising from the firm’s debt collection efforts. The court applied de novo review to determine whether genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding two primary causes of action: violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Regarding the FDCPA claim, the court held that the defendant’s filing of a counter-complaint was not actionable because it was served solely on Nolan’s attorneys via the Judiciary Electronic Filing and Service System and did not include any threat to contact the debtor directly. Citing *Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC*, the court reasoned that communications directed exclusively to a debtor’s attorney are exempt from FDCPA liability, even if the document is publicly accessible electronically, as long as it does not threaten direct contact with the consumer. The court rejected Nolan’s argument that public electronic filing constituted “publication” to the world, distinguishing between those who receive the communication and those who merely have access to it. Regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the court affirmed summary judgment because Nolan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant’s conduct was “outrageous.” Applying Hawaii state law standards, the court noted that the term “outrageous” requires conduct to be without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency. The court found that the counter-complaint had “just cause” as it was compulsory under Hawaii Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a) and that Nolan provided no reasonable basis to conclude the firm’s actions exceeded the bounds of decency. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of the law firm stands, and Nolan’s appeal is dismissed with no further relief granted.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.