FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 7, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 51 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 14 35 -MGC

E. JENNIFER NEW MAN, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us GREGG J. ORMOND, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 7, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:App el la ntE. Jen ni fer Newm an ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Greg g J . Orm on d i n h er s ui t fi le d p ur su an t t o the Fai r Deb t Co ll ect io n P ract ic es Act (“ FDCPA”) , 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2e (5 ). Thi s ca se is be fo re u s fo r a s eco ndti m e. Prev io us ly, we rev ers edin pa rt t he di st ric t co ur t’s fi rs t g ran t o f
su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Orm on d a ndrem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . On
rem an d, Orm on d fi le d asec on d m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d a tt ach edne w ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s m ot io n. Newm an arg ue s o n app eal th atou r pr io r m an da te –i n wh ic h we r em an de d b ecau se “ a g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact
ex is t[e d] as t o wh et he r Orm on d i nt en de d t o t ak e th e le ga l ac ti on th athe th reat en ed in th e wri ts of e xe cu ti on ”–was a fi na l, b in di ng , no n- ne go ti ab le de ci si on reg ard in g Orm on d’s i nt en t t ha t s ho ul d b e rea ffi rm edun de r th e la w-o f-t he -cas e d oc tri ne . Newm an als o a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t erredingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o Orm on d b ecau se th e in fere nc es fro m th e rec or d s ho ul d h av e b een res ol ve d b y th e tri er o f fac t, an d o urpri or de ci si on he ldth atsen di ng a writof e xe cu ti on to a de bt orco ns ti tu te d ath reat . I. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo . LeBl an c v. Uni fu nd CCR Par tn er

s , 60 1 F .3d11 85 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e al so rev ie w a d is tri ctco ur t’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w-o f-t he -cas e d oc tri ne de no vo . Alp ha med , 2In c. v. B. Bra un Medic al , Inc
. , 36 7 F .3d12 80 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). “ Und er t he la w of t he cas e d oc tri ne , bo th di st ric t co urts an d app el la te co ur ts are g en eral ly bo un d b y a pr io r ap pe ll at e d eci si on inth e sa m e cas e.” Id
. at 1 28 5- 86 . “ The law o f th e cas e d oc tri ne , sel f-i m po se d b y th e co ur ts , op erat es to crea te effi ci en cy , fin al it y an d o be di en ce wi th in th e jud ic ia l s y st em .” Li tma n v . Mas s. Mu t. Li fe Ins . Co. , 82 5 F.2 d 1 50 6, 1 51 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7)
. Howev er, t he law- of

-th e-ca se do ct rin e o nl y

ba rs co ns id erat io n o f “ th os e le ga l i ss ue s t ha t wer e actua ll y , or b y ne ces sary

im pl ic at io n, d eci de d i n t he form er pr oc eed in g.” Ola de in de v. Cit y o f Bi rmi ngha m , 23 0 F .3d12 75 , 12 88 (11 th Cir
. 20 00 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Furt he r, “ [e]xce pt io ns to th is do ct rin e ap pl y when subs ta nt ia ll y

di ffer en t ev id en ce i s p ro du ced , when th ere h as be en a ch an ge in co nt ro ll in g aut ho rit y , or wh en th e p rio r de ci si on was c le arl y erro ne ou s an d wo ul d re su ltin m an ife stin jus ti ce.” Ja cks on v. Ala . St at e Ten ur e Co m’n , 40 5 F.3 d 1 27 6, 1 28 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Thu s, “ whe n t he ev id en ce an d the in fere nc es th atm ay be dra wn fr om

[th e rec or d] ch an ge , th e is su e p res en te d c ha ng es as we ll ,”
su ch th at“ th e la w of t he cas e is th e la w m ad e o n agi ve n s etof f act s.” Id
. W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t t he ne w evi de nc e th atOrm on d a tt ach edto hi s s eco ndsu m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n p ro vi de d a n e xc ep ti on to th e

3la w-o f-t he -cas e d oc tri ne , su ch th atth e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t v io la te th atdo ctrin e in

gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t b as edon th e n ew reco rdbe fo re i t. II. T h e F D C P A

p ro h ib i t s a

d eb t c o l l e c t o r f r o m t hre a t e n i n gt o t a

k e a n y a c ti o n t h a t l e g a l l y c a n n o t b e t a k e n o r t h a t i s n o t i nt e n d e d t o b e t a k e n . 1 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 9 2 e ( 5 )
. In
es ta bli shi ng a c la im und er § 169 2e (5 ), whe the r the a ct ion thr ea te ne d is “ one whic h
co uld be le ga lly

ta ke n” is a se pa

ra te inq uir y f ro m the inq uir y r eg ar din g whe the r the de bt c oll ec tor

thr ea te ne d “to t ak e any

a ct ion
. . . not int en de d to be ta

ke n. ” Le B lan c , 601 F. 3d at 11 93 & n. 14. A c la im r ai se d un de r § 16 92e (5 ) “re qui re s pr oof of a f ac t
whic h am ount s to a pe r se vio latio n [ an d th e] sop his tic at ion , or la ck the re of , of the
co nsumer is ir re le va nt t o whe the r [t

he de bt c oll ec tor ] thr ea

te ne d to ta

ke any a ct ion that w as not

int en de d to be ta

ke n. ” Je te r v . Cred

it B ure au, I

nc . , 760 F
. 2d 1 168, 1175 ( 11t h C ir
. 198 5) ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks a nd a lte ra tio ns o mitt ed). A

de bt
co lle ct or ’ s “ co nc lus or

y a ff ida vit ” that t he re w as int ent t o ta

ke a c er ta in c our se of le ga l a ct ion

is not dis posi tiv e, e spe ci al ly

in lig ht o f co nf

lic tin g e vid en ce . Id
. at 1177
. T hus, whe re the pa rt ie s a gr ee on t

he ba sic f ac ts o f the c as e, but

r ea sona bly dis ag re e upon

the pr ope r inf

er en ce s to be dr aw

n f ro m the de bt c oll ec tor ’ s a ct ion s, the ree xis ts a

ge nui ne iss ue of

m at eria l f

ac t t hat sh oul d be de te rmine d by the trie r of fa ct and n ot b y

the c our t i n a sum m ar y j udgment c ont ext. Se e id
. at 11 76- 77. 4Ba se d on the ne w re co rd be fo re us, w e con cl ude that the re is no genu ine iss ue

of m at eria l fa ct re ga

rd ing O rmond’ s inte nt to use the wri ts of ex ec uti on aga ins t N ewm an , as the re co rd de m onst ra te s that O rmond ac tiv el y at te m pte d to do so, but
w as una ble to le vy or se iz e any of N ewm an ’ s asse ts due to her re ca lc itr an ce during the dis co ve ry pr oc es s. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the gr ant of sum

m ar y j udgment in fa vor of O rmond. A F F IR M ED .

5