Kelsey Drennan v. First Resolution Investment

Filing

Kelsey Drennan v. First Resolution Investment

Doc. 0

Case: 10-40293

Document: 00511193626

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/04/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
August 4, 2010 N o . 10-40293 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

K E L S E Y HACKLER DRENNAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Other P e r s o n s Similarly Situated, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. F IR S T RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORPORATION; HOSTO & B U C H A N , PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION; M E L V I N THATHIAH, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Texas U S D C No. 2:08-CV-461

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* P la in t iff-A p p e lla n t Kelsey Hackler Drennan appeals from the Order of the D is t r ic t court that adopted the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate ju d g e and granted the motion of the Defendants-Appellees for a judgment on the p le a d in g s pursuant to Rule 12(c), resulting in the dismissal of Drennan's suit

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-40293

Document: 00511193626

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/04/2010

No. 10-40293 g r o u n d e d in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §1692. The gravamen of Drennan's claim is that the conduct of First Resolution I n v e s t m e n t Corporation, as assignee of Drennan's credit card debt, and of the r e m a in in g Defendants-Appellees as attorneys-at-law representing First

R e s o lu t io n in filing a state court suit against Drennan styled as a suit on a s w o r n account, violated the FDCPA. I n a thoughtful, thorough, and exhaustive analysis of the pleadings that s e t forth Drennan's claims, the magistrate judge concluded that, even when c o n s id e r in g all of the well-pleaded facts in the complaint as being true, the filing o f a suit on account to collect a credit card debt did not constitute either a false o r misleading representation or one that was so harassing, oppressive, or u n c o n s c io n a b le that it was actionable under the FDCPA, even if, arguendo, the u s e of a suit on account on a credit card debt did not meet the necessary r e q u ir e m e n t s of Texas's Rule 185 or any other such rules or regulations. The d is t r ic t court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, a n d granted the motion of Defendants-Appellees to dismiss Drennan's action on t h e pleading. The court concluded that the circumstances of this case do not c o n s t it u t e a violation of the FDCPA, even if the underlying action was not a p r o p e r suit on a sworn account. W e have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the applicable law a s presented in the briefs of the parties, and we have considered the Report and R e c o m m e n d a t io n of the magistrate judge and the order of the district court. As a result, we are satisfied that the district court correctly disposed of this matter. For essentially the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendations of the m a g is tr a t e judge, the order of the district court is, in all respects, A F F IR M E D .

2