relies on Griswold v. J&R Anderson Bus. Serv., 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20365, at *3 (D. Or. 1983), which held, “There is nothing in the legislative history or the statutory language which indicates that an assignee debt collector should be exempt from any portion of section 1692g” even though the previous debt collector provided such notice. ¶14 However, more recent cases have specifically disagreed. See Ditty v. CheckRite, Ltd., 973 F. Supp. 1320, 1329 (D. Utah 1997) (“Section 1692g does not require another debt collector, undertaking collection efforts after a validation notice has been timely sent, to provide additional notice and another thirty-day validation period.”); Senftle v. Landau, 390 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D. Md. 2005); Nichols v. Byrd, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1106-07 (D. Nev. 2006) (<HOLDING>); Oppong v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 566 F.
holding that the notice requirement applies only to the first debt collector that communicates with the consumer holding that a debt collector need not cease its collection efforts in order to abide by the statute it simply needs to convey effectively the validation notice without contradicting it holding that if congress had intended to obligate every subsequent debt collector beyond the first to provide validation notice it would have explicitly called for it in 15 usc section 1692g holding that the validation notice is overshadowed where a debt collector serves a consumer with process initiating a lawsuit during the validation period without clarifying that commencement of the lawsuit has no effect on the information conveyed in the validation notice holding that the defendants collection notice violated  1692g insofar as it stated that disputes under subsection a3 had to be in writing