Eric Beeders vs Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., Roy Dillard

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-10560 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 28, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-00458-AEP
ERIC BEEDERS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GULF COAST COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee,
ROY DILLARD,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 28, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Beeders appeals from an adverse final judgment, entered after a bench
trial, on his complaint against Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc. (“Gulf Coast”),
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (FDCPA), Title 15
U.S.C. § 1692, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA),
Florida Statutes Chapter 559. The alleged violations related to separate telephone
calls that Gulf Coast made to Beeders in an attempt to collect a debt. Each of the
telephone calls utilized the identical or nearly identical voice mail message, the
content of which is not a matter of factual dispute. The transcribed message stated
as follows:
This message is intended for Eric H. Beeders. If you are not Eric H.
Beeders please hang up or disconnect. If you are Eric H. Beeders
please continue to listen to this message. By continuing to listen to
this message you acknowledge that you are Eric H. Beeders. Please
return this call to Roy Dillard from Gulf Coast Collection Bureau.
Please call 877-827-4820 and ask for file number G31852.
On appeal, Beeders argues that this message failed to comply with the applicable
consumer protection regulations because it did not adequately satisfy the
disclosure requirement in that it did not identify the nature of the calling
company’s business, the fact that the caller was a debt collector, and the fact that
the call was being made with respect to collection of a debt.
We find no clear error in the district court’s determination that, taking this
2
message as a whole, even an unsophisticated consumer would not be misled as to
the purpose of this call, as the message identified the name of the caller, which
includes the term “Collection Bureau,” and specifically referenced a personal file
number. Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion
that Gulf Coast satisfied the disclosure requirements of the FDCPA.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Because we find no error in the district court’s determination that Gulf Coast satisfied
the disclosure requirements of the FDCPA, we need not address Beeders’ argument that the
failure to comply with these requirements constitutes a per se violation of the FCCPA.
Accordingly, we also affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Gulf Coast on
Beeders’ claims for violation of the FCCPA.
3