FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 34 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 00 09 -TW T KIMELYN A. MINNIFIELD, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us JOHNSON & FR EEDMAN, LL C, JOHNSON & FR EEDMAN II, LLC, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Kim el yn A. Mi nn ifi el d, an att orne y pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s fr om th e di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f he r cl ai m s b ro ug htpu rs ua ntto th e Fai r Deb t Co ll ect io n P ract ic es Act (F DCPA), 1 5 U.S.C. § § 1 69 2e –1 69 2g , andGeor gi a co m m on law. Min ni fie ldarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredindi sm is si ng he r

1 cl ai m bro ug htun de r § 1 69 2f

be cau se at t he ti m e Jo hn so n & Free dm an , L.L. C. an d Jo hn so n & Free dm anII, L.L.C. (Jo hn so n & Free dm an ) in it ia te d fo recl os ur e pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t h er, the ir c li en t, Well s Fa rg o B an k (Well s Fa rg o) , di d n ot ha ve th e p res en t ri gh t o f po ss es si on of h er p ro pe rty, as requi redby the FDCPA. Sh e al so arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredindi sm is si ng he r cl ai m for actua l da m ag es , inth e fo rm

of e m ot io na l d is tre ss , un de r th e FDCPA an d h er s ta te law cl ai m forfrau d b ecau se Jo hn so n & Free dm anwil fu ll y m is rep res en te d the va li di ty of he r de btan d Well s Farg o’s l eg al st atus inrefe ren ce t o h er d eb t. I. W e rev ie w th e g ran t o f a m ot io n t o d is m is s u nd er Fe d. R. C iv . P. 12 (b )(6 ) de no vo , acce pt in g the all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntas t ru e an d c on st ru in g the m in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff. Sp ea ker v. U.S. Dep ’t o

f Hea lth & Huma n Se rvs. , 623 F . 3d 1 371, 137 9 ( 11t h C ir . 20 10 ). To av oi d d is m is sa l, a co m pl ai nt Minnifield challeng es only the dismissal of her § 1692f c laim, not her cla ims under 1 §§ 1692e and 1692g . Thus, those issues have be en aba ndoned. See Timson v. Sam pson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). 2m

us t al le ge “ en ou gh fact s t o s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face ” an d tha t ri se s “ ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el .” Id
. at 1 38 0 (c it at io n o m it te d) . A cl ai m is fa ci al ly

pla usible “whe n th e pla int if

f ple ad s f ac tua l c ont ent t

hat a llo w s th e co ur t t o draw ther ea sona

ble inf er en cetha

t t hede fe nda

nt i s li ab le f

or the misc ondu ct

a lle ge d. ” Id

. ( ci tatio n omitt ed).

II. A. The FDCPA p ro hi bi ts th e “ [t]ak in g o r th reat en in g t o t ak e an y no nju di ci al act io n t o e ffec t d is po ss es si onor d is ab le m en t o f pr op erty if . . . th ere i s n o p res en t rig htto po ss es si on of t he pro pe rty clai m edas c ol late ral th ro ug h an e nf or ceab le se cu rit y in te res t.” 1 5 U.S.C. § 16 92 f(6 )(A). Altho ug h Geo rg ialaw al lo ws co nt ract s t o h av e retro act iv e eff ectbe twee n the parti es to th e co nt ract , th e retro act iv e d at e is no t ef

fect iv e ag ai ns t thi rdparti es to th e ag reem en t . See Outdo or Syst ems , Inc . v. W

oo d, 54 3 S .E.2d41 4, 4 17 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 00 ). In s up po rt o f he r arg um en t, Mi nn ifi el d n ot es th aton Sep te m be r 14 , 20 09 , two week s af

te r th e fo recl os ur e, Jo hn so n & Free dm anfil edanass ig nm en t, o n be ha lf o f W el ls Farg o, ex ecu te d o n Au gu st28 , 20 09 . The ass ig nm en t i nd ic at ed 2
Gene rally , if matters outside the plea dings a re to be considere d by

the district court, a 2 Rule 12(b)(6) motion mus t be conve rted into a Rule 56 summary judgme nt motion, ex cept that, “[i] n rulingupon a motion to dism iss, the district court may consider a

n extrinsi c docume nt if it 3aneffe ct iv e d at e o f May 29 , 20 09 , bef or e Jo hn so n & Free m an ’s in it ia l co rres po nd en ce wi thMi nn ifi el d i n J un e 2 00 9. Bu t the retro act iv e eff ectof co nt ract s cann otbe effe ct iv e ag ai ns t M in ni fie ldas ath irdparty andth e retro act iv e effe ct iv e d at e d oe s n otpro vi de W el ls Farg o re tro act iv e st an di ng to in it ia te th e fo recl os ur e p ro ceed in gs . Thu s, i t was erro r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o d is m is s Mi nn ifi el d’s 1 69 2f

cla im on th e so le ba si s tha t Geo rg iaall ows co nt ract s t o t ak e effe ctretro act iv el y . There fo re, we v acat e an d re m an d the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f th e m ot io n t o d is m is s M in ni fie ld ’s § 1 69 2f cla im . B. The FDCPA al so all ows a pl ai nt iff to reco ve r “ an y

actua l d am ag e su st ai ne d” as ares ul t o f a v io la ti on of t he st atut e. 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2k (a)( 1) . Actu al da m ag es un de r th e FDCPA i nc lu de da m ag es forem ot io na l d is tre ss . Jo hn so n v . Eat on , 80 F.3d14 8, 1 52 (5t h C ir. 1 99 6) (no ti ng th atth e FDCPA n ot on ly requ ire s tha t the de btco ll ect orco m pe ns at e th e d eb to r fo r any m on et ary da m ag es , bu t al so for“ em ot io na l d is tre ss or o th er i nju ry th atth e d eb to rs canpro ve th e d eb t co ll ect orcau se d.” ). Becaus e we co nc lu de th atMi nn ifi el d s uf fic ie nt ly is (1) ce ntral to the plaintiff’s c laim, and (2) its authe nticity is not challeng ed.” Id. at 1379. Thus, we may

consider the assignment document on appe al bec ause ne ither par ty has cha lleng ed the document’ s authenticity , both parties attac hed it to their pleading s, and the doc ument is centr al to Minnifield’s claim that J ohnson & F ree dman initiated fore closure pr ocee dings a g ainst her be fore Wells Farg o had a se curity interest in her

proper ty . 4al le ge d avi ol at io n o f § 1 69 2f to su rv iv e Jo hn so n & Free dm an ’s Rul e 1 2( b) (6 ) m ot io n, we al so va cat e an d re m an d the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f he r em ot io na l di st res s cl ai m

un de r FDCPA. C. Mi nn ifi el d n ex t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itdi sm is se d h er cl ai m forfrau d. Un de r Geo rg iaco m m on law, the to rt o f frau d h as fiv e el em en ts : (1 ) a fal se rep res en tati on by the de fen da nt ; (2 ) sc ie nt er; (3) in te nt io n t o i nduc e th e pl ai nt iff to actor r efra infro m

act in g; (4) jus ti fiabl e rel ianc e b y th e p la in ti ff; an d (5 ) da m ag e to th e p la in ti ff. Doc ken s v. Ru nkle Co ns ul ti ng , Inc . , 64 8 S .E.2d80 , 83 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 07 ). Add it io na ll y , all eg at io ns of f rau d m us t b e p le d wi th pa rti cu larit y . Fed . R. Civ . P. 9(b ). Geor gi a co urts have he ldth atth ere was no jus ti fiabl e rel ianc e to supp ort a f rau d c la im

wher e th e p la in ti ff kne w th atth e rep res en ta ti on s wer e fal se , Baran co , Inc . v. Bra ds ha w , 45 6 S .E.2d59 2, 5 93 -9 4 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 95 ), orwher e th e p la in ti ff d idno t re ly on the rep res en ta ti on s, St ei mer v. No rths id

e Bld g. S up pl y Co . , 41 5 S .E.2d68 8, 6 89 -9 0 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 19 92 ). Bec au se Mi nn ifi el d fa il edto pl eadan y fact s wi th su ffi ci en t p art ic ul ari ty to de m on st rat e sc ie nt er o n the part o f Jo hn so n & Free dm an , andfai le d t o p le adth at

5sh e jus ti fiabl y rel ie d o n i ts fal se rep res en ta ti on , sh e h as no t s ta te d avi ab le co m m on law fr au d c la im . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l i s af firm ed . Afte r a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d andco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ br ie fs , we vac at e an d re m an d the di sm is sa l o f Mi nn ifi el d’s § 16 92 f an d e m ot io na l di st res s cl ai m s, an d a ffi rm th e d is m is sa l o f he r co m m on law fr au d c la im . AFFIRMED I N PART, VAC ATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

6