|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Jason Sanders|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Bret A Knewtson and Mark G Passannante on behalf of Jason Sanders |
Robert E Sabido, Julie A Smith, Jeffrey A Topor, and Tomio Buck Narita on behalf of Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC
|Consolidate for purposes of oral argument with Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Jason Sanders, S066456.|
Statement of Issues:
|(1) Did the Court of Appeals correctly apply conflict-of-law principles, for purposes of determining which state's statute of limitations applies, if it did not consider the parties' expectation that Virginia law would govern, as provided in the credit card holder agreement? |
(2) Alternatively, should the Court of Appeals have relied on the common law conflict-of-laws presumption that the place where payment is received provides the law of the parties' dealings, as evidence that Virginia law should govern, before application of ORS 12.410 et seq.?
(3) Did the Court of Appeals err in not considering the location of Capital One, the Virginia credit issuer whose dealings with defendant gave rise to the claim asserted by plaintiff, as evidence that the parties expected the law of Virginia to govern, regardless of whether Capital One was a party to the lawsuit?
(4) Does a creditor's intent to form a new agreement with the debtor matter?
(5) Does a debtor's silence form a new agreement fixing the amount due at an amount certain in satisfaction or replacement of the parties' preexisting agreement as a matter of law, in circumstances involving (a) a consumer credit card agreement governed by federal law that requires the credit card issuer to send a statement when it imposes a charge permitted by its cardholder agreement; (b) monthly statements sent under the existing agreement; and (c) the absence of an expressed intent to form a new agreement to replace the existing agreement?
These summaries of cases are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider, see Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: