Case ID: f-appx_249/html/0405-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cynthia G. LAMAR, Defendant-Appellant, Cynthia G. Lamar, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, L.P.A., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-4670.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Sept. 28, 2007.
    Before: SUTTON and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and FORESTER, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Karl S. Forester, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Cynthia G. Lamar appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, L.P.A., rejecting her claim that the Lerner law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., when it included the notice required under the Act with the summons and complaint that it served on her. A recent decision by another panel of our court, see Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Lamar, 503 F.3d 504 (6th Cir.2007), governs this appeal. Save for the fact that the earlier case involved a different mortgage from the one at issue here, it parallels this case in every other material respect: It involves the same primary parties, the same key facts, the same complaints and the same defenses. See JA 75 (district court stating that “the claims raised here are identical to those raised [in Case No. 06-4335]”); id. at 117 n. 1 (Lamar acknowledging that the two cases present “identical issues”). In the earlier case, our court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for LS & R, concluding that “LS & R effectively conveyed notice of Lamar’s right to dispute the validity of her debt.” Lamar, 503 F.3d at 506. Because that panel’s decision was filed prior to this opinion, we are bound by it. See Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir.1985). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in that panel’s opinion, we affirm.