Theresa Marshall v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. , 445 F. App'x 900 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-1843
    ___________
    Theresa Marshall,                       *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the Eastern
    * District of Arkansas.
    Deutsche Bank National Trust            *
    Company; Wells Fargo Home               *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Mortgage, a division of Wells           *
    Fargo Bank, N.A.,                       *
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 16, 2011
    Filed: December 21, 2011
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Theresa Marshall appeals from the order of the District Court1 dismissing with
    prejudice her claims alleging that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Wells
    Fargo Home Mortgage violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
    1
    The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas.
    U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p, and Arkansas state law in connection with the foreclosure of
    a mortgage.
    Following careful de novo review, we conclude that dismissal of the FDCPA
    claims was appropriate for the reasons discussed in the District Court’s order. See
    Poehl v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 
    528 F.3d 1093
    , 1096 (8th Cir. 2008)
    (standard of review); 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(A) (noting that the term “debt collector”
    “does not include . . . any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the
    creditor, collecting debts for such creditor”); Perry v. Stewart Title Co., 
    756 F.2d 1197
    , 1208 (5th Cir. 1985) (“The legislative history of section 1692a(6) indicates
    conclusively that a debt collector does not include the consumer’s creditors, a
    mortgage servicing company, or an assignee of a debt, as long as the debt was not in
    default at the time it was assigned.”); Adair v. Sherman, 
    230 F.3d 890
    , 895 (7th Cir.
    2000) (“[T]he FDCPA is an improper vehicle for challenging the amount of a debt
    established by the bankruptcy court.”). As to the state-law claim, it appears that the
    District Court had intended to dismiss that claim without prejudice, and in fact the
    court did not fully dispose of the claim on the merits. Accordingly, we modify the
    judgment to reflect that the dismissal of the state-law claim is without prejudice, and
    we affirm the judgment as modified. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1367
    (c)(3) (giving district
    courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction where all original-jurisdiction
    claims have been dismissed). We also deny appellees’ motion to strike the reply
    brief.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1843

Citation Numbers: 445 F. App'x 900

Judges: Melloy, Bowman, Shepherd

Filed Date: 12/21/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024