# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 34 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Troy K. Sch effl er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mes se rli & Kram er P.A.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 8, 2 01 5 Fil ed : J un e 2 9, 2 01 5 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, BYE, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

In Sep te m

be r 20 09 , l aw fir m

(an d Ap pe ll ee i n t hi s ca se ) Mes se rli & Kram er, P.A. (Me ss erl i), ob ta in ed a de fau lt jud gm en t fo r it s cl ie nt , Cap it al One Ban k, ag ai ns t Troy Sch effl er, th e App el la nt in th is cas e an d a fo rm er de bt co ll ect or hi m se lf. Hav in g le arn ed th at Sch effl er, at th at ti m e, ha d a rep ut at io n as “ th e m os t li ti gi ou s de bt or ” in
Mi nn es ot a, Mes se rli in st ru ct ed it s em pl oyees no t to co nt act Sch effl er ab ou t hi s fil e.Acco rd in g to Sch effl er, he no ne th el es s se nt a ceas e

- a n d

- de si st le tt er to Mes se rli in

Mar ch 20 11

. Mes se rli sa y s it rece iv ed no le tt er, Sch effl er ne ve r pr od uc ed on e in th e di st ric t co ur t, an d t he re i s n o l et te r in th e rec or d o n a pp eal

.

Mes se rli att em

pt ed to en fo rce th e jud gm en t ag ai ns t Sch effl er by serv in g h im
wit h a ga rn is hm en t s um m on s i n Apri l 20 14

. The su m m on s in fo rm ed Sch effl er t ha t
it was “ fro m a de bt co ll ect or an d is an at te m pt to co ll ect a de bt .” Sch effl er ret ur ne d

to Mes se rli a pr in te d Exe m pt io n Fo rm , whi ch Mes se rli ha d in cl ud ed w i t h th e
ga rn is hm en t su m

m on s. On th at fo rm he cla im ed th at al l of the m on ey th e ba nk ha d
fro zen was pr ot ect ed

, bu t he ga ve no reas o n why it was pr ot ect ed

. In st ead

, he

as se rte d th at th e so ur ce of th e m on ey in hi s acco un t was “ [h is ] bu tt ” an d th at he was

en ti tl ed to de at h be ne fit s be cau se he “ di ed an d pa y ed [h is ] de at h wit h po op m on ey .”

He al so wro te on th e fo rm , “ I to ld y ou th at y ou were was ti ng y ou r ti m e an d m on ey .”

Sch effl er th en en li st ed an at to rn ey wh o se nt a le tt er to Mes se rli as ki ng it to
ho no r th e ceas e-an d- de si st req ue st Sch effl er pu rp or te dl y h a d se nt

. The le tt er al so

as se rte d th at Sch effl er is “ jud gm en t pr oo f” an d su gg es te d Mes se rli red ire ct it s “ de bt

co ll ect io n e ne rg ie s i n a di ffer en t d ire ct io n fr om Mr. Sch effl er.”

Sch effl er th en , act in g pr o se , su ed Mes se rli in fed eral co u r t u n d e r va rio us

se ct io ns of th e Fai r Deb t Co ll ect io n Prac ti ces Act (FDCP A ), the Fai r Cred it Rep or ti ng Act (FCR A), an d st at e la ws. Mes se rli m ov ed to di sm is s th e co m pl ai nt un de r Fed

. R.
Ci v. P. 12 (b )(6 ). Sch effl er res po nd ed an d th en , th ro ug h co un se l, m ov ed to am en d hi s

co m pl ai nt

. The di st ric t co ur t he ld a he ari ng on bo th m ot io n s

. A t t he en d of th e he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Sch effl er’s m ot io n to am en d an d gr an te d Mes se rli ’s

mo t i o n t o di sm is s. W e rev ie w de no vo th e co ur t’s di sm is sa l un de r Ru le 12 (b ) ( 6 )

. 1

On ap pe al

, Sch effl er br ie fly m en ti on s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to am en d, bu t 1 he no whe re ex pl ai ns why he th in ks th at de ni al was im pr op er. Thu s, he ha s waiv ed th is is su e, se e Ro em

m ic h v. Eagl e Ey e Dev
., LLC, 52 6 F.3d 34 3, 35 5 n.1 2 (8t h Cir. 20 08 ), an d we wil l no t ad dr es s it fu rth er. Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n

-2

-Co un ty of Ram se y v. MERSC ORP Hol di ng s, In c., 77 6 F.3 d F.3 d 94 7, 95 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 ).

O n ap pe al

, Sch effl er fir st arg ue s th at Mes se rli im pr op erl y pu ll ed hi s cred i t

rep or t twic e, on ly ni ne da y s apa rt, des pi te hi s let te r req ue st in g a ceas e. Bu t th ere is

no ev i de nc e th at Sch effl er req ue st ed Mes se rli ceas e it s co m m un ic at io ns wit h hi m

. The le tt er fro m hi s at to rn ey m erel y as ks th at Mes se rli ho no r th e earl ie r le tt er Sch effl er al le ge dl y ha d se nt an d of whi ch

, as we no te d, th ere is no ev id en ce. And ev en if th ere

were a ceas e le tt er, Mes se rli ’s co m m un ic at io ns di d no t v i o l a t e i t

. A cred it or m ay

co m m un ic at e wit h a de bt or aft er rece iv in g a ceas e le tt er “ to no ti fy th e co ns um er th at
th e de bt co ll ect or or cred it or m ay in vo ke sp eci fie d rem ed ie s whi ch are or di na ril y in vo ke d by su ch de bt co ll ect or or cred it or .” 15 U.S.C. § 16 92 c(c) (2 ). Tha t is ex act ly
wha t th e ga rn is hm en t le tt er was —a no ti fic at io n th at Cap it al One wou ld be at te m pt in g

to co ll ect th e d eb t Sc he ffl er o wed

.

Sch effl er al so arg ue s th at Mes se rli fai le d to se nd h i m n o t ic e of it s us e or vi ewin g of hi s cred it rep or ts

. Bu t un de r th e FCRA

, M e s se rli co ul d req ue st
Sch effl er’s cred it rep or t fo r us e “ in co nn ect io n wit h a cred it tra ns act io n in vo lv in g th e

co ns um er on who m th e in fo rm at io n is to be fu rn is he d an d in vo lv in g th e ex te ns io n of
cred it to , or re vi ew or co ll ect io n o f a n ac co un t of

, th e co ns um er.” 15 U.S.C. § 16 81 b( a)(3 )(A) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. The co ns um er r e p o r t th at Mes se rli ob ta in ed
in vo lv ed Sch effl er, “ th e co ns um er on who m th e in fo rm at io n is to be fu rn is he d,” an d
in vo lv ed th e “ co ll ect io n of an acco un t of ” Sch effl e r ’s to pa y th e de bt he owe s to Cap it al O n e

. M e ss erl i di d no t ne ed to no ti fy Sch effl er be fo re rev ie win g th at
in fo rm at io n.

to am en d, an d be cau se Sch effl er fai ls to co nt es t th at de ci si on i n t h i s co ur t, an y refe ren ce to th e co m

pl ai nt is to th e or ig in al do cu m en t an d no t th e pr op os ed am en de d

co m pl ai nt

.
-3

-Sch effl er ne xt arg ue s th at th e ga rn is hm en t su m m on s c o n s ti tu te d an “ ad ve rs e

act io n” th at req ui res no ti ce to th e de bt or

. Bu t serv ic e of a ga rn is hm en t su m m on s is

no t li st ed i n th e FRCA’s de fin it io n of an “ ad ve rs e act io n” req ui rin g no ti ce to th e

co ns um er. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 16 81 m (a)( 1) (req ui rem en t of no ti ce), 16 81 a(k ) (d efi ni ng

“ ad ve rs e act io n” ). A n d Sch effl er ci te s no au th or it y fo r hi s as se rti on th at th e
ga rn is hm en t su m

m on s qu al ifi es un de r § 16 81 a(k )(1 )(B) (iv )(II) as “ an act io n ta ke n or de te rm in at io n t ha t i s . . . adv ers e to th e in te res ts of t he co ns um er.”

Last , Sch effl er lo os el y arg ue s th at th e d is tri ct co ur t i nc or rect ly dis m is se d h is

st at e-l aw cl ai m al le gi ng in va si on of pr iv acy. Mi nn es ot a reco gn iz es a cl ai m fo r rel ie f
fo r in va si on of pr iv acy ba se d on a th eo ry of “ in tru si on up on se cl us io n.” See Lak e v. W al -Ma rt St or es , In c., 58 2 N.W .2d 23 1, 23 5 (Mi nn

. 19 98 ). Bu t to st at e a cl ai m un de r

t h a t t h e or y , th e pl ai nt iff m us t al le ge , am on g ot he r th in gs , th at he ha d a le gi ti m at e

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e se cl ud ed m at te r. Swart ho ut v. Mu t. Serv

. Life In s. Co

., 63 2 N.W .2d 74 1, 74 4 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 20 01 )

. Th e in tru si on on th e se cl ud ed
in fo rm at io n al so m

us t be “ hi gh ly of

fen si ve to th e or di na ry reas on ab le [p ers on ]. ” Id

. at 74 5 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

The co ll ect io n o f t h e ba nk -acc ou nt in fo rm at io n he re was no t “ hi gh ly
of fen si ve ”; in fact

, it was au th or iz ed by la w. Mi nn es ot a St at ut e § 55 0.0 1 1 a d vi se s th at if a jud gm en t is le ft un sa ti sf ie d fo r 30 da y s, an at to rn ey fo r th e cred it or on th at jud gm en t m ay req ue st in fo rm at io n fro m th e de bt or reg ard in g th e de bt or ’s as s et s, li ab il it ie s, an d pe rs on al earn in gs

. In ot he r wor ds

, Mes se rli (th e at to rn ey fo r cred it or Cap it al One ) co ul d req ue st fro m Sch effl er, or req ue st th e Mi nn es ot a co ur t to ob ta in

, hi s b an ki ng in fo rm at io n.

Fo r th e ab ov e rea so ns , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-