FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 20, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 37 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 7- cv -0 10 98 -WK W -TFM ROBERT C. KELLER, in di vi du al ly andas r ep res en ta ti ve of a ll ot he r pe rs on s s im il arl y

si tu at ed , FRANK RUSSO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us MACON COUNTY GREYHOUND PARK, INC., d.b .a. Vict ory la nd , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee,

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 20 , 20 12 )Befo re BARKETT, HULL, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andHin kl e, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff cla ss rep res en ta ti ve Ro be rt C . Kell er an d p la in ti ff Fra nkRu ss o 1 (th e “pl ai nt iff

s” ) ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o the de fen da ntMac on Co un ty Greyhou ndPark(“ MCGP ”) o n t he pl ai nt iff s’ cla im th at MCGP wil lfu ll y

vi ol at edth e Fai r an d Acc ur at e Cre di t Tran sa ct io ns Act (“ FACTA”). FACTA p ro hi bi ts m erch an ts fro m pri nt in g m or e th an th e la stfiv e di gi ts of acu st om er’s cre di t o r de bi t ca rdnu m be r on a cu st om er’s rec ei pt . 15 U.S.C. § 1 68 1c (g ). Und er 1 5 U.S.C. § 16 81 n( a), “ [a]ny pe rs on who wil lfu ll y fai ls to co m pl y wit h [t hi s] requi rem en t . . . with re sp ectto an y co ns um er i s l iabl e to th at co ns um er.” In Safe co Ins . Co. o f Am . v. Bu rr, 5 51 U.S. 47 , 56 –5 7, 1 27 S. Ct. 22 01 , 22 08 –0 9 (2 00 7) , th e Supr em e Co urt co ns tru ed“ wil lfu ll y ” in § 1 68 1n (a) a s in cl ud in g b ot h “ kn owi ng ” an d “ reck le ss ” v io la ti on s o f FACTA. Reck le ss ne ss en ta il s “ an un

jus ti fiabl y

hi gh ris k o f ha rm

th atis eit he r kn own or s o o bv io us th atit sh ou ldbe kn own .” Safe co , 55 1 U.S. at68 , 12 7 S . Ct. at22 15 (qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) .
Robert L . Hinkle, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of F lorida, * sitti ngby designation. The district cour

t excluded Plainti ff Russo from the K eller c lass beca use Russo’s claim 1 was not ty

pical of the class. 2InDecem be r 20 07 , th e p la in ti ffs fil eda si ng le co un t co m pl ai ntall eg in g t ha t MCGP wil lfu ll y

vi ol at edFACTA be twee n Oct ob er an d Dec em be r 20 07 by iss ui ng rece ip ts to th e p la in ti ffs an d o th er MC GP cu st om ers sh owi ng cu st om ers ’ fu ll cred itan d d eb itcardnu m be rs . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o MCGP be cau se th e ev id en ce cr eat edno is su e o f m at eri al factas t o wh ethe r MCGP

“ wil lfu ll y ” v io la te d F ACTA; t he ev id en ce, i f an yth in g, s ho wedth atMCGP’s FACTA vi ol at io ns were n ei th er “ kn owi ng ” n or“ reck le ss .” See B urr, 55 1 U.S. at 56 –5 7, 1 27 S. Ct. at22 08 –0 9. Afte r or al arg um en t an d re vi ew of th e rec or d, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ct co urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o M CGP. 2 AFFIRMED.

Summary

judgme nt is appropriate “if the mova nt shows that there is no g enuine dispute 2 as to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(a) . We reviewthe district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt de novo. Gre enber gv. Be llSout h Telec omms., Inc., 498 F .3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007). 3