[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 63 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 24 05 -WSD STEFAN GOIA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CITIFI NANCIAL AUTO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Co un te r Cl ai m an t-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 North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 3, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, JORDAN an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: St efan Goi a, pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di stric t co urt’s jud gm en t i n fav orof C it iF in an ci al Aut o C or po rat io n (“ Ci ti Fi na nc ia l” ) on hi s fe de ral civ il Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 1 of 22rig ht s cl ai m , 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, Fa ir De btCo ll ect io n P ract ic es Act (“ FDCPA”)

cl ai m , 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2 et seq ., andst at e law cla im s. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Cit iF in an ci al . I. Ci ti Fi na nc ia l re m ov edfro m st at e co urt t o t he di st ric t co urt Go ia ’s act io n th ataro se in co nn ect io n wi th hi s 2 00 7 p ur ch as e o f a Su zu ki Aeri o v eh ic le (“ th e ve hi cl e”) f

ro m a Geo rg iade al ers hi p. In Goi a’s co m pl ai nt , he a ll eg edth athe ha d si gn eda fo ur -y ear R et ai l In st al lm en t Sa le Co nt ract(“ th e fi na nc e co nt ract ” o r “ th e co nt ract ”) wi th th e d eal ers hi p t o fi na nc e th e co stof t he ve hi cl e. The d eal ers hi p la te r tr an sf

erre d t he fin an ce co nt ractto Cit iF in an ci al . Upo n a ss ig nm en t, Ci ti Fi na nc ia l p la cedin su ran ce o n t he ve hi cl e inord er t o i ns ur e it s i nt eres t i n t he ve hi cl e an d b il le d t he co stof t he in su ran ce p rem iu m s t o Go ia . Goi a, ho wev er, refu se d t o p ay

th e co stof t he in su ran ce t ha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l o bt ai ne d, as he be li ev ed th athe was n otli ab le forth e co stun de r th e te rm s o f th e fi nanc e co nt ract . After no t re cei vi ng pa y

m en t o f th e b il le d i ns ur an ce co st s, Ci ti Fi na nc ia l d et erm in edth at Goi a was in de fau ltan d a tt em pt edto co ll ectth e co stof t he in su ran ce. Goi a’s co m pl ai ntrai se d c la im s fo r br each of c on tra ct , har as sm en t, d is cri m in at io n, t he ft, de fam at io n, an d t res pa ss in g. Ci ti Fi na nc ia l co un te rcl ai m edth atGoi a h adbre ach ed th e fi nanc e co ntractbe cau se he ha d fa il edto pa y th e am ou ntowedonth e v eh ic le

2 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 2 of 22un de r th e te rm s o f th e co nt ract .

The fin an ce co nt ractpro vi de d t ha t t he cred it or/s el le r of th e v eh ic le was t he Geo rg iade al ers hi p. Th e co nt ractfurth er s ta te d t ha t t he cred it or/s el le r was refe rred to as “ we” o r “ us ” in th e co ntract . At th e b ot to m of the co ntract , bel ow Go ia ’s si gn atur e, was th e st at em en t tha t t he sel le r as si gn edit s i nt eres t i n t he co nt ractto Ci ti Fi na nc ia l, the ass ig ne e. The c on tra ctpro vi de d t ha t Go iaga ve “us ” a s ecu rit y in te res t i n t he ve hi cl e. The c on tra ctfurth er s ta te d t he fol lo win g: “ [y ]ou a gr ee t o ha ve ph y si cal da m ag e in su ran ce co ve rin g l os s o f or da m ag e to th e v eh ic le forth e te rm of t hi s co nt ract . The i ns ur an ce m us t co ve r ou r in te res t i n t he ve hi cl e. If y ou do no t h av e th is in su ran ce, we m ay , if we ch oo se , bu y ph y si cal dam ag e in su ran ce.” Th e cre di to r/s el le r wou ldin fo rm Goi a o f th e type o f in su ran ce an d ch arg e h e m

us t p ay , whi chwou ldbe th e p rem iu m of t he in su ran ce an d afin an ce ch arg e atth e h ig he strat e th e la w perm it te d. Ci ti Fi na nc ia l fi le d am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, ar gu in g t ha t Go ia ’s cl ai m s wer e n otact io nabl e u nd er Geo rg ialaw an d Go iaha d fa il edto pro ve hi s cl ai m s. Go iaals o fi le d am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to hi s cl ai m s, ar gu in g th atCit iF in an ci al bre ach edth e co nt ractby bil li ng hi m forit s i ns ur an ce o n t he ve hi cl e whe re h e al read y ha d p ro pe r in su ran ce. As t o h is di sc riminat io n c la im , Ci ti Fi na nc ia l wo ul d n otex pl ai n wh y itwou ldno t re co gn iz e h is pro of of i ns ur an ce, 3 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 3 of 22whi ch , acco rd in g t o Go ia , con st itut eddi sc riminat io n. As to hi s the ft c la im , he

as se rte d tha t Ci ti Fi nanc ia l fa il edto ap pl y th e p aym en ts th atGoi a se ntitto ward s th e am ou ntdu e und er the co nt ract . Goi a as se rte d t ha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l h aras se d h im an d h is fam il y

by m ak in g t el ep ho ne cal ls to co ll ectpa ym en t fo r th e co st s o f an in su ran ce p ol ic y

th atCit iF in an ci al ha d i ll eg al ly pla cedon th e v eh ic le . Ci ti Fi na nc ia l d efam edhi m by info rm in g c red itbu reau s t ha t h e was de li nque ntan d by inf orm in g h is wife ’s workpl ace, h is fri en ds , andhi s re la ti ve s t ha t h e wou ldlo se th e v eh ic le if h e d idno t p ay th e co stof C it iF in an ci al ’s in su ran ce o n t he ve hi cl e. Fi na ll y , Cit iF in an ci al ha d a tt em pt edto tak e h is ve hi cl e fro m hi s p ro pe rty with ou t jus ti fic at io n, wh ic h c on st itut edtre sp as si ng . Inhi s af fid av it , he a tt es te d t ha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l fa ls el y to ldcred itrep orti ng ag en ci es th athe was d el in qu en t. Fu rth er, Ci ti Fi nanc ia l m ad e te le ph on e cal ls to ot he r th irdpa rti es witho utjus ti fic at io n. As to hi s t res pa ss in g c la im , he a tt es te d th atCit iF in an ci al ha d s en t a t ow t ru ckto hi s p ro pe rty with ou t a r ep os se ss io n o rd er orot he r jus ti fic at io n, as well as c ha rg edhi m fou r ti m es for

a rep os se ss io n fe e. As to hi s d is cri m in at io n c la im , he a tt es te d tha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l i nf orm edhi m

th atitdi d no t re co gn iz e h is in su ran ce, b utdi d n otexpl ai n wh y itdi d n otacce pthi s in su ran ce. Inhi s d ep os it io n, h e te st ifi edth athe was b orn i n R om an iain 19 32 . He als o 4 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 4 of 22te st ifi edth atCit iF in an ci al rep res en ta ti ve s h advi si te d h is ho m e se ve ral ti m es , and

th e rep res en ta ti ve s wo ul d ri ng th e d oo rb el l o f hi s h om e in a “ ci vi li zedm an ne r” an d i nf orm Goi a to co nt actCit iF in an ci al . Thes e rep res en ta ti ve s d idno t s ta te an yth in g fu rth er. Goi a’s on ly com pl ai ntwas wi th res pe ctto th e to w dri ve r who ha d a“ di ffer en t m an ne r,” b uthe di d n otex pl ai n t he dri ve r’s act io ns furth er. As t o hi s d efam at io n c la im , Goi a te st ifi edth atCit iF in an ci al ha d c on ta ct edon e o f Goi a’s fam il y m em be rs an d h is wife ’s workpl ace, b utGoi a d idno t re m em be r wha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l t ol d t he th irdpa rti es , on ly tha t i t was ab ou t Go ia ’s acco un t. Inth e d is tri ctco urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er, i t l ib eral ly con st ru edGoi a’s di sc riminat io n c la im

as a ris in g u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 ba se d o n h is na ti on al or ig in an d a ccen t. Itfou ndth at , Cit iF in an ci al was n ota st at e act or , andth us , hi s cl ai m was wi th ou t m eri t. The co urt fo un d t ha t h is st at e la w def am at io n c la im

was pr eem pt edby the Fai r Cre di t Re po rti ng Act, 1 5 U.S.C. § 16 81 et seq . (“ FCRA” ). As t o Go ia ’s cla im s fo r tr es pa ss in g, h aras sm en t, an d t he ft b as edon Geor gi a cri m in al st atut es , th e co urt fo un d t ha t t ho se st atut es di d n otpro vi de a ci vi l caus e of act io n. As to Goi a’s ci vi l t res pa ss cla im , Goi a h adno t i de nt ifi edan y ev id en ce th atsh owe d t ha t t he re was anun la wfu l i nt erfe ren ce wi th Goi a’s ri gh t t o e njo y hi s pr op erty . The d is tri ctco urt co ns tru edGoi a’s al le ga ti on s o f ha ras sm en t as ari si ng un de r th e FDCPA. Ho wev er, the FDCPA o nl y ap pl ie d t o d eb t co ll ect or s, wh ic h 5 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 5 of 22Ci ti Fi na nc ia l was no t. The co urt d et erm in edth atth ere wer e d is pu te d fa ctua l

is su es reg ard in g t he co nt ractcla im . Thu s, t he co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fav orof C it iF in an ci al as t o a ll of the cla im s i n Go ia ’s com pl ai nt , exc ep t as to th e co nt ractcla im . At the pre tri al co nf

eren ce, al m os t t hr ee m on th s af te r th e co urt h adsch edul ed th e cas e fo r a b en chtri al , Goi a in fo rm edth e co urt t ha t h e wou ldpre se nthi s co nt ractcla im

to a jury. The c ou rt i nd ic at edth atth ere was no reque stfora jury in th e in st an t ca se . Goi a res po nd edth athe ha d re qu es te d ajury in st at e co urt, b efo re hi s ca se was re m ov ed , bu t tha t h e d idno t h av e a co py of th e d oc um en t n ow. The co urt s ta te d t ha t, i f Goi a h adwant eda jury tria l, h e h adto reque sta jury tria l i n fed eral co urt, wh ic h h e h adne ve r do ne . Thu s, the co urt wo ul d b e th e tr ie r of fact attri al . Goi a m ad e o ral an d wri tt enm ot io ns to recu se th e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e be cau se , acco rd in g t o Go ia , he was bi as edan d p reju di ced . In s up po rt, Go iafil ed anaffi da vi t i n wh ic h h e rei te rat edth e arg um en ts inhi s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Bec au se Goi a h adno t o ffer edan y ev id en ce co nc ern in g b ia s o r im pa rti al it y th atwou ldm ak e fai r jud gm en t i m po ss ib le , th e st an dardforrecu sa l un de r 28 U.S.C. § 4 55 , th e co urt d en ie d Go ia ’s m ot io n. At the be nc h t ria l, Re ne e Wood s, t he Vice Pres id en t o f Ope rat io ns for 6 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 6 of 22Ci ti Fi na nc ia l, t es ti fie d t ha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l was th e le nd er tha t ac tu al ly pro vi de d t he

fin an ci ng forth e v eh ic le . Goi a was in fo rm edat t he de al ers hi p t ha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l wou ldbe th e le nd er o f th e v eh ic le lo anan d a ls o re cei ve d awelc om e le tt er i n J un e 20 07 in fo rm in g h im

th atCit iF in an ci al was t he len de r. Cit iF in an ci al als o s en t Go ia bi ll in g i nv oi ces th atin fo rm edGoi a th athe m us t m ai nt ai n i ns ur an ce o n h is ve hi cl e an d n am e Ci ti Fi na nc ia l as th e lo ss pa y ee. Ci ti Fi na nc ia l al so sen t Go ialet te rs th at in di cat edhi s i ns ur an ce h adexpi redan d t ha t re qu es te d p ro of of i ns ur an ce, b ut rece iv edno res po ns e. Thu s, Ci ti Fi na nc ia l p la cedin su ran ce o n t he ve hi cl e to pr ot ectit s i nt eres t i n t he ve hi cl e an d b il le d Go iaforth e co stof t he pre m iu m . Goi a la te r se ntCit iF in an ci al a po li cy fro m Nati on wid e th atin di cat edth athe ha d pr oc ur edin su ran ce o n h is ve hi cl e fo r a s ix -m on th pe rio d i n 2 00 8, b ut Ci ti Fi na nc ia l d et erm in edth atGoi a was no t i n c om pl ianc e wit h t he co nt ract be cau se Cit iF in an ci al was n otli st edas t he lo ss pay ee o n t he po li cy . Becau se Goi a di d n otpa y

th e co stof C it iF in an ci al ’s in su ran ce o n t he ve hi cl e, Goi a b ecame de li nque nt . Fo ll owi ng th e b en ch tri al , th e co urt d et erm in edth atCit iF in an ci al was t he as si gn ee o f th e co nt ract , as d em on st rat edby its co nduc t i n l oa ni ng th e fu nd s t o Goi a an d s erv ic in g t he lo an , andth us , Cit iF in an ci al was aut ho riz edto en fo rce t he te rm s o f th e co nt ract . In t hi s ca se , th e co nt ractrequi redGoi a to ob ta in in su ran ce 7 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 7 of 22th atwas s uf fic ie ntto co ve r Ci ti Fi na nc ia l’s i nt eres t i n the ve hi cl e. By fai li ng to li st Ci ti Fi na nc ia l as th e lo ss pay ee o n Go ia ’s in su ran ce p ol ic y with Nat io nwi de , Goi a br each edth e co nt ract . Whe n Go iabre ach edth e co nt ract , Cit iF in an ci al was en ti tl edto pu rch as e th e in su ran ce p ol ic y on th e v eh ic le an d c harg e th atco stto Goi a. Goi a’s fai lu re t o m ak e h is m on th ly paym en ts as r equi redun de r th e co nt ract co ns ti tu te d ade fau lt , andth us , Goi a was li ab le forth e to ta l am ou ntdu e, as well as in te res t s in ce Go ia ’s in it ia l b reac h. Th us , jud ge m en t was en te redin fav orof Ci ti Fi na nc ia l as to Goi a’s br each -o f-co nt ractcla im , andjud gm en t was en te redin fav orof C it iF in an ci al ag ai ns t Go iaas t o C it iF in an ci al ’s bre ach -o f-co nt ract co un te rcl ai m . II. On ap pe al , Goi a arg ue s t ha t t he st at e act edjoi nt ly w it h C it ig ro up , of wh ic h Ci ti Fi na nc ia l i s a s ub si di ary, as t he fed eral go ve rn m en t o wns st oc k i n t he co m pa ny. Goi a cl ai m s t ha t h is th eftcla im is m eri to rio us as C it iF in an ci al to ok fro m hi m m or e th anwas a ll owe d u nd er the co nt ract . Goi a co nt en ds th athe was ha ras se d wi th res pe ctto Cit iF in an ci al ’s deb t p ract ic es an d t ha t t he co urt s ho ul d no t h av e g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o C it iF in an ci al onth e b as is th atitwas co ll ect in g i ts own de bt s b ecau se itwas, i n fa ct , st eal in g. Go iaco nt en ds th athe pr ov edall fou r el em en ts of h is de fam at io n c la im . He als o p ro ve d h is tre sp as si ng 8 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 8 of 22cl ai m

be cau se Cit iF in an ci al ’s vi si ts were n otpo li te or app ro pr ia te , andhe di d n ot co ns en t t o t he vi si ts . 1 W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g al l ev id en ce an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le factua l i nf eren ces in fav orof t he no nm ov in g p art y . Penl ey v. Es li ng er , 60 5 F .3d84 3, 8 48 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e th ere i s n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact an d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Id . W e m ay

affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t o n a ny gro un d tha t fi nd s s up po rt i n the reco rd . Lu ca s v. W .W . Gra in ge r, In c. , 25 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Pro se pl ead in gs are he ldto a le ss st rin ge ntst an da rdth anpl ead in gs dra fte d b y att orne y s an d s ho ul d b e li be ral ly con st ru ed . Box er X v. Harris , 43 7 F .3d11 07 , 11 10 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Dis cr imi na ti on Cla im Inord er t o p rev ai l i n aciv il rig ht s ac ti on un de r § 1 98 3, a p la in ti ff m us t sh ow t ha t an actor o m is si on de pr iv edhi m of afed eral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , and th atth e actor o m is si onwas b y a pe rs on act in g u nd er co lo r of st at e law. Harvey v . Har vey , 94 9 F .2d11 27 , 11 30 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). Sect io n 1 98 3 d oe s n otpro vi de a Goia also c halleng es seve ral of thedistrict court’s stateme nts conce rningthe contra ct 1 claim in its order de nying his motion to reconside r its summary judgme nt order. H oweve r, the district court denie d summary judgme nt as to the contra ct claim and he ld a benc h trial as to the claim. The district c ourt did not in any way base its benc h-trial rulingon the contra ct claim on its statements in its order de nying his motion to reconside r. Thus, we do not addre ss any alleg ed inconsistency

or fa lsity conce rningthese stateme nts. 9 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 9 of 22cau se of a ct io n a ga in stfed eral off ic ers forvi ol at in g apa rty’ s fe de ral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Ra th er, s uc h acau se of a ct io n a ris es un de r Bive ns v. Si x Unk no wn Fed. Na rc ot ic s Ag en ts , 40 3 U.S. 3 88 , 39 7, 9 1 S .Ct. 1 99 9, 2 00 5, 2 9 L.Ed.2 d 6 19 (19 71 ). Howev er, the Supr em e Co urt h as de cl in edto ex pa nd Bive ns to en co m pa ss a su itag ai ns t p riv at e co rp or at io ns act in g u nd er co lo r of fed eral law. Co rr . Ser vs . Cor

p. v. Ma lesk

o , 53 4 U.S. 6 1, 7 1, 7 4, 1 22 S.Ct . 51 5, 5 21 , 52 3, 1 51 L.Ed.2 d 4 56 (20 01 ). Goi a’s cl ai m

th atCit iF in an ci al ’s par en t co m pa ny, Citi Gro up , recei ve d fu nd in g fr om

th e fed eral go ve rn m en t d oe s n otsh ow t ha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l was act in g un de r co lo r of

st at e la w. Thus , Goi a h as no t s ho wn s ta te act io n u nd er § 19 83 . 2 Tr es pa ss an d T

he ft Cla ims Und er Geo rg ialaw, ev ery ci ti zen ha s t he rig htof e njo ym en t o f pr iv at e pr op erty , andev ery actof a no th er wh ic h u nl awfu ll y in te rfer es with s uc h

Goia argues that the district cour t misconstrued his complaint as alleg ing a claim under 2 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he alleg ed that CitiFinancia l had committed discrimination. To the extent Goia intended to raise a claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1981 or § 1982, Goia fa iled to submit any evidenc e that showe d Citi Financ ial discriminated ag ainst him based on his minority status. See Rutstein v. Avis Re nt-A-Car Sys., Inc . , 211 F.3d 1228, 1235 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (providingthat, for a succe ssful claim under § 1981, a plaintiff must show that the defe ndant intentionally discriminated ag ainst him with reg ard to minority status in making a

contra ct); Jack

son v. Okaloosa Cnty., Fla. , 21 F.3d 1531, 1543 ( 11th Cir. 1994) (providingthat, for a succe ssful claim under § 1982 c laim, a plaintiff must show that he wa s deprived of his property

interest bec ause of intentional rac ial discrimination). Thus, the district court’ s decision to not construe his cla ims under § 1981 or

§ 1982 did not result in error . 10 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 10 of 22en

joym en t i s an act io nabl e to rt. O.C.G.A. § 5 1- 9- 1. A tr es pa ss er i s o ne who kn owi ng ly andwitho utau th or it y en te rs up on th e la ndof a no th er af te r rec ei vi ng pr io r no ti ce t ha t en try is fo rb id de n. Pop e v. Pul te Home C or p. , 53 9 S .E.2d84 2, 84 3- 44 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 00 ). Fora pl ai nt iff to rai se a cl ai m

for tre sp as s u nd er § 5 1- 9- 1, t he y

m us t s ho w th atth e tr es pa ss er re fu se d t o l eav e th e h ou se or r eal ty aft er b ei ng ask edto lea ve or tha t t he y in te rfer edwith the pl ai nt iff’s po ss es so ry in te res t i n t he real ty. Se e Udo in yi on v. Re/Max o

f At la nt a , 65 7 S .E.2d64 4, 6 48 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 08 ). The Geor gi a cri m in al st atut es fortre sp as si ng an d t he ft d o n otex pr es sl y pr ov id e fo r a ci vi l re m edy , andth us , a civ il rem edy can no t ar is e fro m

a vi ol at io n of th es e st atut es . Se e O.C.G.A. §§ 1 6- 7- 21 (cri m in al tre sp as s) , 16 -8 -2 (th eftby ta ki ng ), 16 -8 -3 (th eftby decep ti on ); Antho nyv. Am. Gen. Fin . Ser vs ., Inc . , 69 7 S.E.2d16 6, 1 71 -7 2 (Ga . 20 10 ) (p ro vi di ng th at , wher e th ere i s n ot hi ng in th e pr ov is io ns of t he cri m in al st atut e cre at in g apri va te cau se of a ct io n i n fa vo r of th e vi ct im pu rp orte dl y

ha rm edby the vi ol at io n o f th e p en al st atut e, th ere i s n o p riv at e ci vi l caus e o f act io n a ris in g fr om th e cri m in al st atut e). W it h re sp ectto Goi a’s ci vi l t res pa ss cla im , th e so le ev id en ce i n the reco rdat th e ti m e th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t was th atCit iF in an ci al sen t a to w tru ckon to hi s p ro pe rty with ou t ju st ifi cat io n o r a rep os se ss io n o rd er an d t ha t 11 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 11 of 22Ci ti Fi na nc ia l re pr es en ta ti ve s ra ng Goi a’s do orbe ll in a “ ci vi li zedm an ne r” an d

reque st edhi m

to co nt actCit iF in an ci al . This ev id en ce d oe s n otgi ve ris e to a cl ai m of tre sp as s u nd er Geo rg ialaw, as th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atCit iF in an ci al ’s rep res en ta ti ve s d idno t l eav e whe n re qu es te d t o d o s o, o r th atGoi a ev er ev en as ke d t he m

to lea ve . Se e Udo in

yi on , 65 7 S .E.2dat 6 48 . Furt he r, he di d n otsh ow th atCit iF in an ci al in te rfer edwith h is rig htto po ss es si on un de r Geo rg ialaw. Id. Alt ho ug h t he di stric t co urt d idno t ad dr es s wh ethe r th ere was a ci vi l caus e o f act io n fo r Goi a’s cl ai m s o f th eftari si ng un de r to rt l aw, th is was n oterro r. Goi a’s th eftcla im

was are-c as ti ng of h is bre ach -o f-co nt ractcla im , as h e h adco nt en de d th atCit iF in an ci al bi ll edhi m forin su ran ce t ha t i t h adno rig htto ob ta inun de r th e co nt ract . Thu s, b ecau se Goi a’s “ th eft ” cl ai m was e nc om

pa ss edby his bre ach -o fco nt ractcla im , itwas u nn eces sa ry to ad dr es s wh ethe r Goi a h ada cau se of a ct io n un de r to rt l aw. O.C.G.A. § 51 -1 -1 (pr ov id in g t ha t a t ort i s the un la wfu l v io la ti on of a pr iv at e le ga l dut y

ot he r th ana m ere b reac h o f co nt ract , exp res s o r im pl ie d) ; se e Byrd v . Uni te d S

er vs . Aut o. As s’ n , 72 9 S .E.2d52 2, 5 25 -2 6 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 2 01 2) (p ro vi di ng th aton e who tak es pro pe rty un de r a fai r orho ne stcla im of r ig htdo es no t co m m itlar cen y

or the ft) . Defa mat io n Cla im To m ak e o uta pr ima fa ci e cas e o f de fam at io n, a p la in ti ff m us t s ho w th e 12 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 12 of 22fo ll owi ng : (1 ) a fal se an d d efam at ory st at em en t co nc ern in g t he pl ai nt iff ; (2 ) an unpr iv il eg edco m

m un ic at io n t o ath irdpa rty; (3 ) fau ltby the de fen dantam ou nt in g atlea stto ne gl ig en ce; an d (4 ) sp eci al ha rm or t he act io nabi li ty of th e st at em en t reg ard le ss of a ny sho win g o f sp eci al ha rm . Mathis v. C an no n , 57 3 S .E.2d37 6, 38 0 (Ga . 20 02 ). Goi a’s de fam at io n c la im

was b as edon two sep arat e al le ga ti on s: (1 ) Ci ti Fi na nc ia l m ad e d efam at ory st at em en ts to Goi a’s fri en ds , fam il y , and wife ’s workpl ace, a nd(2) Cit iF in an ci al fal se ly repo rte d t o c red itrep orti ng ag en ci es th atGoi a was de li nque ntonhi s ac co un t. As t o Go ia ’s firs t al le ga ti on , he ne ve r pr es en te d a ny sup po rti ng ev id en ce atth e su m m ary jud gm en t s ta ge of wh at st at em en ts Cit iF in an ci al actua ll y m ad e to Goi a’s fri en ds , fam il y , andwife ’s workp la ce, b utrathe r on ly test ifi edth atth e te le ph on e cal ls were m ad e wit ho ut jus ti fic at io n. With ou t an y ev id en ce as to whatst at em en ts Cit iF in an ci al m ad e, it can no t b e d et erm in edwhet he r th e st at em en ts were fa ls e, an d t hu s, Go iaha d fa il ed to setforth a pr ima fa ci ecas e o f de fam at io n. With res pe ctto hi s s eco ndall eg at io n co nc ern in g C it iF in an ci al ’s rep orts of d el in qu en cy to cred itag en ci es , th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t ac tu al ly deci de whet he r Goi a h adpre se nt edev id en ce p ro vi ng a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f de fam at io n u nd er Geo rg ialaw. Ra th er, the co urt d et erm in ed th atth e FCRA pre em

pt edGoi a’s cl ai m

on th is ba si s. Go iado es no t ad dr es s t he 13 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 13 of 22co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t h is cla im was p reem

pt edby FCRA. Thu s, t hi s i ss ue is ab an do ne d, an d we d o n otad dr es s i t. Se e Ti mso n v . Sa mps on , 51 8 F .3d87 0, 8 74 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (pr ov id in g t ha t i ss ue s t ha t a pr o s e ap pe ll an t fa il edto rai se in hi s br ie f were aband on ed ). Acco rd in gl y , bec au se Goi a d oe s n otch al le ng e th e b as is on whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t, we af firm th e co urt’s ru li ng in fav orof C it iF in an ci al as t o h is de fam at io n c la im . Har as sme nt

Cla im In19 77 , Con gr es s en act edth e FDCPA i n o rd er t o e li m in at e ab us iv e d eb t co ll ect io n p ract ic es by deb t co ll ect or s. Opp en he im v. I.C. S ys ., Inc . , 62 7 F .3d83 3, 83 6 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 0) . The FDCP A pro hi bi ts a “ de btco ll ect or ” fro m en ga gi ng in an y co nduc t wh ic h re su lt s i n h aras sm en t, o pp res si on , or abu se . 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2d . The FDCP A als o p la ces va rio us li m it s o n d eb t co ll ect or s’ co m m un ic at io ns with o th ers in co nn ect io n wi th th e co ll ect io n o f an y de bt , in cl ud in g t ha t t he y

sh al l n otco m

m un ic at e wit h t he co ns um er af te r 9: 00 pm

or a t th e co ns um er’s p la ce o f work, an d t he y sh al l n otco m

m un ic at e wit h t hi rdpa rti es wit ho utth e p rio r co ns en t o f th e co ns um er. 1 5 U.S.C. § 16 92 c(a) , (b) . Howev er, th es e p ro vi si on s o f th e FDCPA o nl y ap pl y to de btco ll ect or s, an d t hu s, i n o rd er t o st at e a p laus ib le FDCPA cl ai m , a pl ai nt iff m us t al le ge th atth e d efen da ntis a “ de bt co ll ect or .” Se e Rees e v. Ell is , Pai nt er , Rat te rr ee &Ada ms, LLP , 67 8 F .3d12 11 , 14 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 14 of 2212 16 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (p ro vi di ng th ata pl ai nt iff m us t al le ge th atth e d efen da ntis a de btco ll ect orto st at e a cl ai m un de r 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2e ). A part y qu al ifi es as a de btco ll ect orwher e itop erat es a bu si ne ss th atha s the pri nc ip al pu rp os e o f co ll ect in g d eb ts or r eg ul arl y att em pt s t o c ol le ctde bt s t ha t ar e o wedto an ot he r. 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2a (6 ). The di stric t co urt co ns tru edGoi a’s cl ai m s o f ha ras sm en t as ari si ng un de r th e FDCPA. As th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y de te rm in ed , Cit iF in an ci al di d n ot qu al ify as a d eb t co ll ect orun de r th e FDCPA, s uc h tha t Go iaco ul d b rin g acla im fo r ha ras sm en t u nd er the FDCPA’s p ro vi si on s, b ecau se Cit iF in an ci al was e ng ag ed in th e co ll ect io n o f it s o wn d eb ts , as o pp os edto th e d eb ts of a no th er. Se e Rees e , 67 8 F .3dat 1 21 6. Go ia , ho wev er, d oe s n otch al le ng e th e co urt’s co ns tru ct io n o f hi s cl ai m as a ris in g u nd er the FDCPA, n ordo es he ch al le ng e th e fi nd in g t ha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l was no t a d eb t co ll ect or . Ins te ad , he o nl y co nt en ds th atCit iF in an ci al was no t co ll ect in g i ts de bt s b ecau se itwas s te al in g, wh ic h i s i rrel ev an t t o t he co urt’s d is po si ti on of h is cla im . Furt he r, Geo rg ia ’s cri m in al haras sm en t s ta tu te do es no t p ro vi de fora pr iv at e rem edy . Se e O.C.G.A. § 16 -1 1- 39 .1 (h aras si ng ph on e cal ls ); Antho ny , 69 7 S .E.2dat 1 71 -7 2. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt pr op erl y gra nt edsu m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Cit iF in an ci al as t o t hi s cl ai m . III. 15 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 15 of 22W it h re sp ectto th e d is tri ctco urt’s p ret ria l ru li ng s, Go iaarg ue s t ha t t he

di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r rec us al . He als o as se rts th athe reque st eda jury tria l i n s ta te co urt. Recu sa l Mo ti on A di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o re cu se is rev ie wedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Ch rist o v . Pad

ge tt , 22 3 F .3d13 24 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 4, whe re a p art y

to a pr oc eed in g i n t he di stric t co urt fi le s an affi da vi t t ha t t he jud ge be fo re wh om

th e m at te r is pe nd in g h as a pe rs on al bi as or p reju di ce i n fa vo r of an y adve rs e p art y , a jud ge sh al l p ro ceedno furth er wi th res pe ctto th e p ro ceed in g. Id. To warr an t re cu sa l u nd er § 14 4, t he m ov in g p art y m us t al le ge fact s t ha t wo ul d co nv in ce a re as on ab le pe rs on th atbi as actua ll y ex is ts . Id. Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 45 5, a jud ge m us t d is qu al ify himself

in an y pro ceed in g i n wh ic h h is im pa rti al it y m ig ht reas on ab ly be que st io ne d o r whe re h e h as a pe rs on al bi as or p reju di ce co nc ern in g a p art y . Id. Fo r a jud ge to recu se hi m se lf u nd er § 45 5, t he re m us t b e g ro un ds th at wou ldlea d a n o bjec ti ve , ful ly info rm edlay ob se rv er t o e nt ert ai n s ig ni fic an t d oubt ab ou t the jud ge ’s im

pa rti al it y . Id. Goi a h as no t s ho wn t ha t a r ecu sa l was warran te d u nd er ei th er § 14 4 o r § 4 55 . Goi a d idno t t es ti fy as t o a ny gro un ds inhi s af fid av itatt ach edto hi s recu sa l m ot io n t ha t wo ul d c on vi nc e a rea so nabl e p ers on th atth e d is tri ctco urt 16 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 16 of 22jud ge was a ctua ll y pe rs on al ly bia se d, as all of h is all eg at io ns of b ia s p ert ai ne d t o th e co urt’s l eg al rul in gs . Furthe r, th e rec or d p ro vi de s n o g ro un ds th atwou ldlea d a fu ll y in fo rm edlay ob se rv er t o e nt ert ai n a ny sig ni fic an t d oubtab ou t t he jud ge ’s im pa rti al it y . Thu s, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Go ia ’s m ot io n. Ju ryTri al

Requ es t In te rp ret in g t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e is a qu es ti onof l aw subjec t t o de no vo rev ie w. Burns v. La wthe r , 53 F.3d12 37 , 12 40 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). The rig htto a ci vi l ju ry

is no t ab so lu te an d, t hu s, m ay be waiv edif t he reque stfor a jury was un ti m el y . Id. Fed eral law g ov ern s t he rig htto a jury tria l i n fe de ral co urts with re sp ectto di ve rs it y act io ns . Co lu mbu s Mi ll

s, In c. v. Free la nd , 91 8 F.2 d 1 57 5, 1 57 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . Und er the Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e, a pa rty who, b efo re re m ov al , exp res sl y de m an de d ajury tri al in acco rd an ce wi th st at e la w nee d n otren ew th e d em an d a fte r rem ov al . Fed .R.Ci v.P . 81 (c)( 3) (A). Afte r rem ov al , a party who i s en ti tl edto a jury tria l und er Fe d.R .Civ .P. 38 m us t b e gi ve n ajury tri al wher e h e se rv es a de m an d wi th in 14 da y s af te r he was s erv ed wit h ano ti ce o f rem ov al fil edby ano th er p art y . Fed .R.Ci v.P . 81 (c)( 3) (B). Goi a as se rts th athe reque st eda jury tria l i n s ta te co urt. Ho wev er, h e d idno t pr es en t an y

ev id en ce i n the di st ric t co urt t o s up po rt t hi s as se rti on , andno reco rdof 17 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 17 of 22a reque stfora jury tria l was fil edwith t he di st ric t co urt. Go iadi d n otrai se an y

ad di ti on al gro un ds forwhy he was e nt it le d t o ajury tri al in th e d is tri ctco urt an d do es no t ra is e an y

ad di ti on al gro un ds onap pe al . As th is was the on ly bas is forhi s reque stfora jury tria l, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g h is reque st , inth e ab se nc e o f ev id en ce s ho win g tha t h e h ad , infact , m ad e su ch a reque st . IV. Goi a co nt en ds th atRen ee Woo ds ga ve th e fo ll owi ng fal se tes ti m on y at t ria l: (1 ) Ci ti Fi na nc ia l was th e o wne r an d l ie nh ol de r of th e v eh ic le ; (2 ) Goi a h adfai le d to pro vi de pro of

of i ns ur an ce t o C it iF in an ci al ; (3 ) Goi a’s in su ran ce p ol ic y onth e ve hi cl e h adex pi red ; an d (4 ) th e in su ran ce d idno t co ve r th e v al ue of t he ve hi cl e. Goi a arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt re li edon th es e fal se st at em en ts in reac hi ng it s jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Cit iF in an ci al . Goi a fu rth er ar gu es th atCit iF in an ci al de frau de d t he di st ric t co urt b y us in g t he rep os se ss io n o rd er tha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l h ad ob ta in edin st at e co urt t o s up po rt i ts cas e. Fo ll owi ng a be nc h t ria l, we re vi ew th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on s o f la w de no vo an d i ts factua l fi nd in gs for cle ar err or . Cr

ys ta l En tm’t

&Filmwo rk

s, In c. v. Ju ra do , 64 3 F .3d13 13 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Und er the cle ar erro r st an da rd , we m ay rev ers e a d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in g o nl y if, af te r vi ewin g a ll th e ev id en ce, we ha ve a de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d. Id. at

18 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 18 of 2213 19 -2 0. Th e cre di bi li ty of a wit ne ss is in th e p ro vi nc e o f th e fac tfi nd er, an d t hu s,

we wil l n otord in ari ly revi ew th e fac tfi nd er’s d et erm in at io n o f cre di bi li ty. Id. at 13 20 . Und er Geo rg ialaw, a co nt ractis anag reem en t b etween two parti es forth e do in g o f a s pe ci fie d t hi ng . Se e Bud ge t Ren t-a -Ca r o

f At la nt a, In c. v. W

eb b , 46 9 S.E.2d71 2, 7 13 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 96 ). A part y can reco ve r fo r a b reac h o f co nt ract whe re the re h as be ena br each an d t he re are da m ag es . Id. Whe re an ass ig no r ha s as si gn eda co nt ractto anass ig ne e, th e as si gn ee ca n en fo rce t he co nt ractin th e ev en t o f a b reac h o f th e te rm s o f th e co nt ract . Se e Moo ne yh am v. Pr ov iden t Au to Lea si ng Co . , 65 5 S .E.2d64 0, 6 41 -4 2 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 20 07 ) (p ro vi di ng th atth e as si gn ee was th e rea l p art y inin te res t t o b rin g a n a ct io n to reco ve r da m ag es un de r th e co nt ractwher e (1 ) th e co nt ractpro vi de d t ha t t he as si gn orin te nd edto ass ig n t he co nt ractto th e as si gn ee, an d (2 ) aft er the as si gn m en t, the ass ig ne e se rv ic edan d a dm in is te redth e lo an ). An as si gn m en t i s th e as si gn or ’s tra ns fer o f it s ri gh t t o p erfo rm an ce u nd er a co nt ractto th e as si gn ee, su ch th atth e as si gn ee ac qu ire s a r ig htto pe rfo rm an ce u nd er the co ntract . Se e Ban k o f Ca ve S pr in g v . Gold K

is t, In c. , 32 7 S .E.2d80 0, 8 02 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 85 ). Ri gh ts an d dut ie s u nd er a co nt ractare g en eral ly freely ass ig nabl e. Se e Co rb in v. Reg io ns Ban k, 57 4 S .E.2d61 6, 6 19 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 02 ) (p ro vi di ng th at , up on 19 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 19 of 22as si gn m en t, as si gn ee h adrig htto pa ym en ts fro m de bt or ). Ass ig nm en ts , ho wev er, are n otva li d wh ere t he y

wou ldm at eri al ly inc reas e th e b ur de n o r ri skim po se d o n th e o bl ig orby con tra ct . CGU Lif e In s. Co . v. Si ng er

Ass et Fin . Co., LL C , 55 3 S.E.2d8, 1 3 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 1) . Georg iaco urts ha ve in di cat edth atan as si gn m en t o f co nt ractrig ht s can b e in ferr edfro m th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d n eedno t b e reduc edto writ in g. Se e For es t Co mmodit y Co rp . v. Lon e Sta r In du s., In c. , 56 4 S .E.2d75 5, 7 58 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 02 ). Furth er, n ot ic e o f th e as si gn m en t d oe s n otha ve to be in writ in g b efo re b eco m in g e ffec ti ve . Se e Moo ne yh am , 65 5 S .E.2dat 6 42 . Goi a ap pe ars to be arg ui ng th at , bas edon th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e co nt ract , he di d n otha ve to pro te ctCit iF in an ci al ’s in te res t i n t he ve hi cl e b ecau se itne ve r be cam e th e v eh ic le ’s li en ho ld er. Goi a d oe s n otch al le ng e th e fac t t ha t t he co nt ract was ass ig ne d. Un de r Geo rg ialaw, wh enStar Su zu ki ass ig ne d i ts rig htun de r th e co nt ractto Cit iF in an ci al , Cit iF in an ci al acqui reda ri gh t t o Go ia ’s per fo rm an ce un de r th e co nt ract , as wel l as a se cu rit y in te res t i n t he ve hi cl e. Se e Ban k o f Ca ve Sp ri ng , 32 7 S .E.2dat 8 02 . Thu s, fo ll owi ng th e as si gn m en t, Ci ti Fi na nc ia l h ada se cu rit y in te res t i n the ve hi cl e, su ch th atitwas ali en ho ld er, co nt rary to Go ia ’s as se rti on on ap pe al . Nex t, Go iaass ert s t ha t Ci ti Fi nanc ia l s ho ul d n otha ve pl acedin su ran ce o n 20 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 20 of 22th e v eh ic le be cau se he ha d p ro vi de d C it iF in an ci al with p ro of of i ns ur an ce, h is in su ran ce n ev er ex pi red , andhe ha d i ns ur edth e fu ll va lu e o f th e v eh ic le . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt’s b as is forfin di ng th atGoi a b reac he d t he co nt ractwas on ly bas edon Goi a’s fai lu re t o e ns ur e th atCit iF in an ci al ’s in te res t was pro te ct ed un de r th e co nt ractan d was no t b as edon Goi a fai li ng to pro vi de pro of of in su ran ce, h is in su ran ce ex pi rin g, o r hi m no t h av in g t he ful l v al ue of t he ve hi cl e in su red . Thu s, t o t he ex te ntW oo ds di d t es ti fy th at(1) Goi a h adfai le d t o p ro vi de pr oo f of in su ran ce t o C it iF in an ci al in va rio us in st an ces , (2) be li ev ed , in20 07 , th at Goi a’s in su ran ce h adex pi red , or (3 ) so m eh ow i nd ic at edth atGoi a d idno t h av e th e fu ll va lu e o f th e v eh ic le in su red , th is was n otth e b as is of t he co urt’s ru li ng on th e co nt ractcla im , andno erro r oc cu rredin th is res pe ct . Goi a as se rts th atth e d is tri ct co urt erredin ba si ng it s d et erm in at io n, t ha t h e h adbre ach edth e co nt ract , on th e rep os se ss io n o rd er tha t Ci ti Fi na nc ia l h adob ta in edin st at e co urt, b ecau se th e o rd er was lat er d is m is se d. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t re ly on thi s o rd er as ha vi ng any le ga l v al ue with re sp ectto th e b reac h- of -co nt ractcla im , andth us , di d n oterr i n th is res pe ct . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Ci ti Fi na nc ia l o n Go ia ’s § 1 98 3 c iv il rig ht s cl ai m , FDCPA h aras sm en t cl ai m , and st at e la w cla im s. 21

Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 21 of 22AFFIRMED.

22 Case: 12-12639 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 22 of 22