PATRICIA PELFREY, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND THE CLASS DESCRIBED HEREIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
PATRICIA PELFREY, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND THE CLASS DESCRIBED HEREIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
208 F.3d 945
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIA1Y1: We affirm the judgment of the district court granting the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (1994), does not apply to the defendant, because the defendant is a “person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity ... is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation.... ” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(i). See Pelfrey v. Educational Credit Management Corp., 71 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1172-74, 1179-80 (N.D.Ala.1999). AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003)…oting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. at 1776) (other internal quotation marks omitted). We have previously said that “[a] district court’s failure to address a core concern of Rule 11 constitutes plain error.” United States v. Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F. 3d 945, 949 (11th Cir.2000); see also Quinones, 97 F. 3d at 475. The context in which we have said that, however, is one in which there was a violation of an explicit and specific requirement of Rule 11. See Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F. 3d at 949-51 (failure…
-
United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2003)…165-66 n. 9, 109 S.Ct. 439, 448 n. 9, 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988)). In addition, this Court has stated that Rule 11 “does not say that a court’s only means of compliance is to read the specified items in haec verba.” United States v. Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F. 3d 945, 950 (11th Cir.2000). Instead, in Rule 11 proceedings, matters of substance, not form, are controlling. See United States v. Stitzer, 785 F. 2d 1506, 1513-14 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Bell, 776 F. 2d 965, 971 (11th Cir.1985). Turning to t…1 / 2
-
United States v. Nelida Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2014)…the punishment authorized, and the government stated that “the Court shall order restitution for all losses caused by the offenses,” the district court clearly satisfied Rule 11(b)(1)(E). (D.E. 532 at 11:6-7.) See United States v. Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F. 3d 945, 950 (11th Cir.2000) (“Rule 11[ ] does not say that a court’s only means of compliance is to read the specified items in haee verba. Instead, any variations or deviations from the procedures mandated by Rule 11 that do not affect a defendant’s subst…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence