FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 30, 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 0- 14 61 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 25 98 -J EC
JONI LEE SHOUP, on be ha lf o f he rs el f an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us MCC URDY & CANDLER, LLC, Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 30 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d F ORRESTER, * Dis tri ctJu dg e.

Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

designation.PER CURI AM:

Jo ni Sh oup fi le d alaws ui t ag ai ns t M cCu rdy & Can dl er, LLC al le gi ng a vi ol at io n o f th e Fai r Deb t Co ll ect io n P ract ic es Act, 1 5 U.S.C. § 16 92 e. The di st ric t co urt d is m is se d h er co m pl ai ntfor fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ), an d S ho up ap pe al s, co nt en di ng th athe r co m pl ai ntst at eda va li d c la im for st atut ory dam ag es un de r th e FDCPA b ecau se McC ur dy & Can dl er’s i ni ti al co m m un ic at io n l ette r fal se ly saidth atit s cl ie nt , Mo rtg ag e Ele ctro ni c Reg is tra ti on Sy st em s, In c. (MERS ), was S ho up ’s “ cred it or .” I. Sh oup b ou gh t a h om e in Geor gi a in 20 03 . To fi na nc e h er n ew ho m e, sh e en te redin to a m ortg ag e co nt ractwith Am eri ca Who le sa le Lend er. The co nt ract st at edth atAm eri ca Who le sa le Lend er was th e “ Len de r,” b utitals o d es cri be d MERS a s “ th e g ran te e u nd er” t he m ortg ag e co nt ractan d a s “ a se pa rat e co rp or at io n th atis act in g s ol el y

as ano m in ee fo r Len de r an d Len de r’s su cces so rs an d a ss ig ns .” Sh oup d efau lt edon he r m ortg ag e, an d M ERS’ law fi rm , McCu rdy & Can dl er, s en t Sh oup a n i ni ti al co m m un ic at io n l ette r. Thatlet te r was en ti tl ed ,

“NOTICE PURSUANT TO FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTIC ES ACT 15 USC 1 69 2,” an d s ta te d t ha t i ts pu rp os e was “ anatt em ptto co ll ecta de bt .” The le tt er i de nt ifi edMERS as “ th e cre di to r on th e ab ov e ref eren cedlo an .” (Em

ph as is 2ad de d.)

So on aft er re cei vi ng th atlet te r, Sh oup fi le d aco m pl ai ntag ai ns t M cCu rdy

& Can dl er u nd er the FDCPA. Sh e al le ge d t ha t M ERS is no t a “ cred it or ” as de fin ed in th e FDCPA b ecau se itdi d n otoff er o r ex te ndcred itto Sh oup a ndsh e d oe s n ot owe MERS a d eb t. In st ead , acco rd in g t o t he co m pl ai nt , MERS i s “ a co m

pa ny tha t tra ck s, fo r it s cl ie nt s, the sal e o f pr om is so ry no te s an d s erv ic in g ri gh ts .” Sh oup, th eref or e, al le ge d t ha t M cCu rdy & Can dl er v io la te d t he FDCPA b y fal se ly stat in g in th e in it ia l co m

m un ic at io n l et te r th atMERS was Sh oup’s “ cred it or .” 1 McC ur dy & Can dl er fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ), whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d. Fi nd in g t ha t M ERS was a “ cred it or ” u nd er the FDCPA, th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Sh oup’s co m pl ai ntdi d n otst at e a cl ai m forst atut ory da m ag es un de r th e FDCPA. Th e co urt al so co nc lu de d t ha t, ev enif M ERS was no t a “ cred it or ,” cal li ng MERS o ne was h arm le ss . This is Sh oup’s ap pe al
. II. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he gra ntof am ot io n t o d is m is s u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , “ acce pt in g t he all eg at io ns in th e co m pl ai ntas t ru e an d
co ns tru in g t he m

in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff.” Be la ng er v . Sal va ti on
Shoup also broug ht her c laim on behalf of a putative c lass and sought class ce rtification. 1 The district cour

t did not rule on that issue, so it is not before us on appea l. 3Arm

y , 55 6 F .3d11 53 , 11 55 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ A com pl ai ntm us t s ta te a pl au si bl e cl ai m forrel ie f, an d ‘a cl ai m

ha s fa ci al pl au si bi li ty whe n t he pl ai nt iff pl ead s factua l co nt en t t ha t al lo ws t he co urt t o d raw the reas on ab le in fere nc e th atth e de fen da ntis li ab le forth e m is co nduc t al le ge d.’” Sin al tra ni na l v . Coc a-Co laCo ., 57 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 61 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Ash cro ft v . Iqb al , 55 6 U.S. 6 62 , 12 9 S .Ct. 1 93 7, 1 94 9 (2 00 9) ) (al te rat io n o m it te d) . W e al so rev ie w de n ov o m at te rs of s ta tu to ry

in te rp ret at io n. Be la ng er, 5 56 F.3dat 1 15 5. Und er the FDCPA, “ [a] deb t co ll ect orm ay no t u se an y

fal se , dec ep ti ve , or m is le ad in g re pr es en ta ti on or m ean s i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e co ll ect io n o f an y de bt ,” 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2e , whi ch in cl ud es “ [t]he us e o f an y fal se rep res en ta ti on or de cep ti ve m ean s t o c ol le ctor a tt em ptto co ll ectan y

de btor t o o bt ai n i nf

orm at io n co nc ern in g aco ns um er,” i d. § 16 92 e(1 0) . The s ta tu te de fin es “ cred it or ” as “ an y pe rs on who off

ers or e xt en ds cred itcrea ti ng a de btor t o wh om a de btis owed , bu t su ch term do es no t i nc lu de any

pe rs onto th e ex te ntth athe rece iv es anass ig nm en t ortra ns fer o f a d eb t i n d efau ltso le ly for the pu rp os e o f fac il it at in g c ol le ct io n o f
su ch de btforan ot he r.” Id . § 1 69 2a (4 ). And“ [t]he FDCPA p ro vi de s t ha t ‘any de btco ll ect orwho fai ls to co m pl y with a ny pro vi si on of t hi s s ub ch ap te r with
res pe ctto an y

pe rs on is li ab le to su ch pe rs on ’ fo r [ac tu al an d s ta tu to ry ] da m ag es an d c os ts .” Bo ur ff v . Lub li n, _ _ F .3d__ , sl ip op . at 6 , No. 1 0- 14 61 8 (1 1t h C ir.

4Mar . 15 , 20 12 ) (quo ti ng 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2k (a))
.

Ourde ci si on in th is cas e is co nt ro ll edby ourrece ntde ci si on in Bo ur ff. In th atcas e a l aw fi rm

sen t a l ette r to th e p la in ti ff i n “ AN ATTE MPT TO COLLECT A DEBT.” Id. at__ , sl ip op . at 3 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Thatlet te r id en ti fie d a lo anservi cer a s “ th e cre di to r on th e ab ov e-re fere nc edlo an .” Id . at _ _, s li p o p. at 3 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The p la in ti ff’s co m pl ai ntall eg edth atth e lo an se rv ic er was no t a “ cred it or ” u nd er the FDCPA, id ., andth atth e la w firm vi ol at ed th e FDCPA’s “ pr oh ib it io n o n fa ls e, de cep ti ve or m is le ad in g re pr es en ta ti on s b y fal se ly stat in g i n i ts co ll ect io n n ot ic e th at[th e se rv ic er] was the ‘ cred it or ’ on [th e pl ai nt iff’s] lo an ,” id . at _ _, s li p o p. at5 (s om e quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . The al le ga ti on th atth e lo anservi cer was no t a “ cred it or ” was en ou gh to st at e a pl au si bl e cl ai m

forrel ie f un de r th e FDCPA. Id . at _ _, s li p o p. at6– 7. Here, v ie win g t he all eg at io ns in th e co m pl ai ntin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Sh oup, s he ha s al le ge d t ha t M ERS d idno t o fferor e xt en d c red itto he r an d t ha t s he do es no t o we a d eb t t o M ERS. Becaus e th e FDCPA d efi ne s a “ cred it or ” as “ an y pe rs on who off

ers or e xt en ds cred itcrea ti ng a de btor t o wh om a de btis owed ,” 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2a (4 ), Sh oup h as all eg edth atMERS i s n ota “ cred it or ” u nd er the FDCPA. Fi na ll y , bec au se th e co m pl ai ntall eg es th atMcC ur dy & Can dl er’s i ni ti al
co m m un ic at io n l ette r fal se ly ide nt ifi edMERS as he r “ cred it or ,” th e co m pl ai nt 5st at es a pl au si bl e cl ai m forrel ie f un de r th e FDCPA. See Bo ur ff, _ _ F .3dat _

_, sl ip op . at 6 –7 . Andbe cau se th e FDCPA p ro vi de s a c la im for st atut ory da m ag es ba se d o n a ny vio la ti on of t he st atut e, se e 1 5 U.S.C. § 16 92 k( a)(2 ), McC ur dy & Can dl er’s al le ge d v io la ti on of t he FDCPA i s n otha rm le ss . See Mu hav. En co re Rec ei vabl e Mg m

t., In c., 55 8 F .3d62 3, 6 29 (7t h C ir. 2 00 9) (“ W ere t he pl ai nt iff s se ek in g a ctua l d am ag es rathe r th anjus t s ta tu to ry da m ag es , th ey

wou ldhave to pr es en t s om e ev id en ce t ha t t he y were m is le d t o t he ir d etriment.” ); B ak er v . G.C. Serv s. Co rp ., 67 7 F .2d77 5, 7 80 (9t h C ir. 1 98 2) (“ The st atut e cl earl y sp eci fie s t he to ta l d am ag e awardas t he su m of the sep arat e am ou nt s o f actua l d am ag es , st atut ory da m ag es an d a tt orne y

fees . There is no in di cat io n i n t he st atut e th at awardof s ta tu to ry

da m ag es m

us t b e b as edon pro of

of a ctua l d am ag es .”). The di st ric t co urt erredin di sm is si ng Sh oup’s co m pl ai ntun de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ). REVERSED AND REMANDED.

6