Court Opinion

ID: 9377931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 01:00:33.135629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.001946
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20418         Document: 00516669960             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/08/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                  March 8, 2023
                                        No. 21-20418
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk

   Bishara Dental, P.L.L.C.,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Morris, Lendais, Hollrah & Snowden P.L.L.C.,

                                                                    Defendant—Appellee.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:20-CV-3079

   Before Jones, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Bishara Dental, P.L.L.C. (“Bishara”) sued the law firm Morris,
   Lendais, Hollrah & Snowden in state court on state and federal causes of
   action. Morris Lendais removed, and the district court dismissed all of
   Bishara’s claims. On appeal, Bishara argues only that the district court erred
   by dismissing its claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
   Because Bishara is not a “consumer” under that Act, we AFFIRM.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-20418         Document: 00516669960               Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/08/2023

                                          No. 21-20418

                                                 I
           This case arises from Morris Lendais’s efforts to collect a debt that it
   claims Bishara owes to Outfront Media LLC (a non-party). 1
           In 2014, an individual named Helen Bishara signed a contract under
   which Outfront agreed to provide a billboard advertisement for an entity that
   the contract identified as “Bishara Dental.” Outfront later sued Bishara
   Dental, P.L.L.C. (that is, “Bishara,” the appellant here) in Arizona state
   court. Outfront alleged that Bishara had agreed to the advertising contract
   but had breached it by failing to pay for some of Outfront’s services. Outfront
   won a default judgment against Bishara, and it filed suit to domesticate that
   judgment in Harris County, Texas (the “Domestication Suit”). Morris
   Lendais later appeared as counsel for Outfront in the Domestication Suit.
   That suit appears to be ongoing.
           As part of the Domestication Suit, Bishara informed Morris Lendais
   that Bishara is “not the correct party,” was “never a party to the contract,”
   “disputes the validity of the debt,” and “maintains that the debt is not
   [Bishara]’s debt.” Bishara also alleges that Morris Lendais “had knowledge
   that they were pursing the wrong party for a debt.” Bishara’s “mistaken
   identity” argument appears to turn on the fact that the advertising contract
   names “Bishara Dental,” whereas the Arizona judgment names “Bishara
   Dental, PLLC.” Unconvinced, Morris Lendais continued its collection

           1
             In this appeal from a motion to dismiss, “we assume that the facts the complaint
   alleges are true and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Sewell v.
   Monroe City Sch. Bd., 974 F.3d 577, 582 (5th Cir. 2020). Although Outfront was previously
   known as “CBS Outdoors,” we use the more recent name for clarity.

                                                 2
Case: 21-20418      Document: 00516669960          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/08/2023

                                    No. 21-20418

   efforts by, among other things, representing Outfront in the Domestication
   Suit.
           Bishara then filed suit in Texas state court, alleging that Morris
   Lendais’s collection efforts violated the federal Fair Debt Collection
   Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
   (“DTPA”), and several other state laws. Morris Lendais removed to federal
   court, based on federal-question jurisdiction, and it moved to dismiss for
   failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed all of Bishara’s claims
   with prejudice. Bishara appealed—but only as to the DTPA claim.
                                         II
           The district court had federal-question jurisdiction over Bishara’s
   FDCPA claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, and it had supplemental
   jurisdiction over Bishara’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
   Although Bishara appeals from the dismissal of its state-law DTPA claim,
   and not its federal-law FDCPA claim, our appellate jurisdiction is
   nonetheless secure under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See, e.g., GlobeRanger Corp. v.
   Software AG U.S., Inc., 836 F.3d 477, 491 (5th Cir. 2016) (exercising appellate
   jurisdiction over “the merits” of the case even though the only remaining
   questions arose under state instead of federal law).
           We review the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo,
   assuming that the complaint’s factual allegations are true, and viewing them
   in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d
   548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008). We may affirm dismissal on any ground that the
   record supports. See Walmart Inc. v. DOJ, 21 F.4th 300, 307 (5th Cir. 2021).
                                        III
           The DTPA creates a cause of action for a “consumer,” which means
   “an individual, partnership, [or] corporation . . . who seeks or acquires by

                                          3
Case: 21-20418      Document: 00516669960          Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/08/2023

                                    No. 21-20418

   purchase or lease, any goods or services.” Tex. Bus. & Com. Code
   §§ 17.45(a), 17.50. “To be a consumer, [1] the claimant must have sought or
   acquired goods or services by purchase or lease, and [2] those goods or
   services must form the basis of the complaint.” Burton v. Prince, 577 S.W.3d
   280, 291 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.); Sherman Simon
   Enters., Inc. v. Lorac Serv. Corp., 724 S.W.2d 13, 14 (Tex. 1987) (similar).
          Bishara alleges that it is a “consumer” because “it is a business that,
   among other things, seeks to acquire goods and services.” But Bishara
   mentions only one specific good or service—the billboard. Yet Bishara also
   expressly disclaims any connection between the billboard and the complaint:
   “[t]he DTPA claim did not arise out of the alleged [advertising] contract.”
   Instead, Bishara says, “[t]he DTPA claim is the illegal activity of Defendant
   which arise[s] out of and is motivated out of greed and violations of the Act
   and is not linked to the alleged contract.”
          These allegations cannot sustain a DTPA claim. The advertising
   contract cannot support the claim, because Bishara denies any connection to
   that contract (and thus denies that it ever sought or purchased anything from
   Outfront). On the contrary, Bishara argues: “This case involves the filing to
   collect a debt against the wrong company, the wrong business with a very
   similar name.” Nor can Morris Lendais’s debt-collection efforts support
   such a DTPA claim, because Bishara does not allege that it ever sought or
   purchased any good or service from that law firm.
          In short, Bishara has not identified any specific “goods or services”
   that it sought or acquired from anyone. See Burton, 577 S.W.3d at 291. And
   even if Bishara did purchase services from Outfront (a fact Bishara repeatedly
   rejects), it has not identified how that purchase “forms the basis” of its
   complaint against Morris Lendais. See id. Instead, Bishara’s complaint

                                          4
Case: 21-20418     Document: 00516669960          Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/08/2023

                                   No. 21-20418

   focuses on Morris Lendais’s debt-collection efforts. Bishara did not seek or
   purchase those services, so it is not a “consumer” under the DTPA.
         We AFFIRM.

                                        5