Case ID: f-appx_538/html/0739-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard W. CAW, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-1255.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 4, 2013.
    Filed: Nov. 6, 2013.
    Joseph Mark Meinhardt, Overland Park, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Avanti D. Bakane, Timothy Gunn Shelton, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL, John M. Hongs, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Richard Caw appeals from an order of the District Court granting summary judgment to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, (PRA) in this action brought by Caw under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (FDCPA). Having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied that Caw’s failure to establish the date on which PRA made the allegedly prohibited telephone call was fatal to his claim. See Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 248 F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir.2001) (noting that appellate court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party); 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) (stating that an action to enforce any liability created by the FDCPA may be brought within one year from the date on which the violation occurs). The evidence was sufficient to establish that there was no violation of the general or specific terms of the FDCPA, and summary judgment was proper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. 
      
      . The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.