Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 10-1933
HAROLD BOOSAHDA,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
PROVIDENCE DANE LLC,
Defendant Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Ivan D. Davis, Magistrate
Judge. (1:09-cv-00556-IDD)
Argued:
December 8, 2011
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Harold
Boosahda
appeals
the
district
courts
award
of
Boosahda
Providences
affirmative
defenses.
Because,
as
explained
affirmative
defenses,
we
need
not
address
the
I.
On or about May 16, 2008, Providence sued Boosahda in the
Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia, seeking to collect
more
than
$22,000
Providence
by
First
Bank,
USA
owed
Chase
on
credit
Manhattan
N.A.
Bank
(First
card
USA,
USA).
accounts
N.A.
assigned
(Chase),
Boosahda
to
and
countersued,
to
provide
him
with
certain
disclosures
when
the
counsel
attempted
to
introduce
into
evidence,
of
Providence,
and
the
trial
court
entered
judgment
thereon.
On
May
15,
2009,
Boosahda
arising
from
commenced
this
action
in
the
Providences
unsuccessful
state
court
defenses.
Boosahda
moved
to
strike
four
of
the
On February 26,
2010,
and
the
district
court
conducted
hearing
entered
an
Discovery
thereafter
moved
for
summary
judgment
on
the
ground that Boosahda could not establish that the debt due on
the credit cards was consumer debt subject to the FDCPA an
essential element of each of his claims for relief. 3
Boosahda
opposed the summary judgment motion and filed his own crossmotion for such relief.
J.A.
287-88.
During
the
district
courts
July
9,
2010
is
debt
collector
within
the
meaning
of
the
unable to carry his burden of showing that the credit card debt
was consumer debt, the court granted summary judgment in favor
of Providence.
II.
We
review
judgment,
de
novo
viewing
the
district
facts
and
courts
the
award
reasonable
or
of
summary
inferences
allegedly
Rule
of
the
nonmoving
partys
case
necessarily
III.
In this appeal, we are tasked solely with deciding whether
the district court erred in concluding that Boosahda failed to
show that the debt incurred on the Chase and First USA credit
cards was consumer debt as opposed to commercial or business
debt for FDCPA purposes. 4
Second, he posits
contentions in turn.
The
FDCPA
requires
debt
collector
to
disclose
in
its
The
Any information
as
standing
for
any
such
7
proposition.
Indeed,
the
Loan Serv. LP, 614 F.3d 380, 386 n.3 (7th Cir. 2010).
We agree.
sufficient
to
establish
an
FDCPA
claim,
debt
Cf.
Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 399-400 (6th
Cir. 1998) ([t]o punish [debt collector] for compliance with
[ 1692e(11)]
[by
disclosing]
that
it
is
an
attempt[]
to
Put simply, a
including
the
disclaimer
within
its
initial
written
FDCPA.
In
any
case,
Providences
disclaimer
is
not
reliance
judgment
as
on
disclaimer
to
firms
insufficient
debt
collector
to
defeat
status
and
the
Chase
and
First
USA
credit
cards
was
consumer
debt.
Boosahda makes much of the fact that the state court action was
initiated against him in his personal capacity.
As the district
could
have
Sys.,
been
Inc.,
236
business
F.3d
expenses.
1072,
1075
Cf.
(9th
Slenk
Cir.
v.
2001)
the
loan,
rather
than
the
form
alone
(internal
The
In
the
latter
as
in
his
state
court
trial
Yet in
used
district
those
court,
cards
we
deem
for
it
any
business
troubling
purpose.
that
Like
Boosahda
the
suddenly
See Cline v.
Wal-Mart
Stores,
Inc.,
144
F.3d
294,
301
(4th
Cir.
1998)
56
motion
and
observing
that
Court
will
assume
that
incredible
omitted)).
on
its
face
(internal
quotation
marks
n.7
(4th
Cir.
alterations omitted).
(internal
quotation
marks
and
As we have explained,
11
that the debt incurred on the Chase and First USA credit cards
was consumer as opposed to business or commercial debt. 7
IV.
Pursuant to the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED
12