John Burns v. Grisham Law Firm , 668 F. App'x 676 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 15-3884
    ___________________________
    John Burns
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Grisham Law Firm; Audrianna Grisham, P.A.
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
    Fort Roots Federal Credit Union; John and Jane Does, 1-100
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
    ____________
    Submitted: August 29, 2016
    Filed: September 1, 2016
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    John Burns appeals the district court’s1 order granting summary judgment to
    Audrianna Grisham, P.A. (Grisham),2 in his action alleging Grisham violated the Fair
    Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, by making
    misrepresentations while pursuing a state-court debt-collection proceeding against
    Burns, and by attempting to collect attorney’s fees not authorized by the agreement
    creating the debt.3
    We conclude that summary judgment was properly granted. See Richmond v.
    Higgins, 
    435 F.3d 825
    , 828 (8th Cir. 2006) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de
    novo). Burns did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
    Grisham’s statements during the state-court proceedings were misleading or
    deceptive. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (prohibiting false, deceptive or misleading
    representations in connection with the collection of any debt); cf. Janson v.
    Katharyn B. Davis, LLC, 
    806 F.3d 435
    , 437 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of
    FDCPA claim where plaintiff did not allege that defendant attorneys swore to facts
    they knew to be false). On appeal, Burns does not challenge the district court’s
    determination that the attorney’s fees Grisham sought to collect were permitted by
    Arkansas law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f (prohibiting debt collector from collecting or
    attempting to collect any amount not expressly authorized by agreement creating debt
    or permitted by law); Hageman v. Barton, 
    817 F.3d 611
    , 619 (8th Cir. 2016) (to
    1
    The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    2
    Burns named “Grisham Law Firm” as an additional defendant, but it was
    clarified during the proceedings that this entity does not exist.
    3
    Burns does not challenge on appeal the disposition of his state-law claims.
    See Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 
    387 F.3d 733
    , 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (claims not
    briefed on appeal are abandoned).
    -2-
    succeed on claim under § 1692f, plaintiff must establish that amounts sought were not
    authorized by law or by contract).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-3884

Citation Numbers: 668 F. App'x 676

Judges: Loken, Benton, Kelly

Filed Date: 9/1/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024