Sheri Myers v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, et al

Filing

OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Alice M. Batchelder, Chief Circuit Judge, Authorizing; Alan E. Norris, Circuit Judge and Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judge.

Case: 10-4220

Document: 006111357147

Filed: 07/03/2012

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0703n.06
FILED

Case No. 10-4220
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
SHERI M. MYERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC; KIMBERLY
A. KLEMENOK; ERIC T. KOHUT;
JEFFREY J. SOBECK; MARTIN BUNCE,
Defendants-Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Jul 03, 2012
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO

_______________________________________
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge; NORRIS and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. This case arises from Asset Acceptance’s
(“Asset”) purchase of a debt that Sheri Myers accumulated on her Chase Bank credit card. In May
2009, Asset sued Myers in state court to recover the debt owed on the account and attached to its
complaint a Statement of Account and an Affidavit in support of its claim.
In August 2009, Myers sued Asset in the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that Asset
violated the federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1629e, and the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01, because the Statement
of Account and the Affidavit that Asset attached to its complaint in state court were false,
misleading, or deceptive. Specifically, Myers claimed that the Statement was deceptive because it
looked liked a credit card statement from Chase rather than a document from a debt collector, and

Case: 10-4220

Document: 006111357147

Filed: 07/03/2012

Page: 2

No. 10-4220, Myers v. Asset Acceptance, et al.

the Affidavit was deceptive because it did not prove the facts averred therein and the affiant did not
have personal knowledge of those facts.
The district court granted summary judgment to Asset on the FDCPA claims. The court held
that the least sophisticated consumer would not have been misled or deceived by the Statement or
Affidavit, and there was no evidence in the record that any of the information in those documents
was false. After the court disposed of the federal claims, it declined to exercise jurisdiction over the
state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Myers timely appealed.
After carefully reviewing the district court’s opinion, the briefs, and the record in this case,
we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Asset. As the district
court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the undisputed material
facts contained in the record, issuance of a full written opinion by the court would serve no
jurisprudential purpose.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court.

2