Cindy J. Cook v. Anthony A. Petrocchi

Eighth Circuit

Cindy J. Cook v. Anthony A. Petrocchi

455 F. App'x 707

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided January 9, 2012·No. 11-1028·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cindy J. Cook appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. In 2007, Cook obtained a mortgage loan. Real Time Resolutions (RTR) was the loan servicer. In August 2009 — and again in March 2010 — attorney Anthony A. Petroc-chi wrote Cook for his client, RTR, stating that RTR had tried to contact her to collect payment on the mortgage and that failure to respond to the letters “may result in RTR filing legal action” against her. Cook sued, alleging the letters violated the FDCPA. The district court dismissed Cook’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See Van Zee v. Hanson, 630 F.3d 1126, 1128 (8th Cir.2011) (citing Gregory v. Dillard’s, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 472 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc)). Having reviewed the record and considered Cook’s arguments, we affirm on the basis of the analysis set forth in the district court’s thorough memorandum opinion and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Cindy J. Cook appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. In 2007, Cook obtained a mortgage loan. Real Time Resolutions (RTR) was the loan servicer. In August 2009 — and again in March 2010 — attorney Anthony A. Petroc-chi wrote Cook for his client, RTR, stating that RTR had tried to contact her to collect payment on the mortgage and that failure to respond to the letters “may result in RTR filing legal action” against her. Cook sued, alleging the letters violated the FDCPA. The district court dismissed Cook’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See Van Zee v. Hanson, 630 F.3d 1126, 1128 (8th Cir.2011) (citing Gregory v. Dillard’s, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 472 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc)). Having reviewed the record and considered Cook’s arguments, we affirm on the basis of the analysis set forth in the district court’s thorough memorandum opinion and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cindy J. Cook v. Anthony A. Petrocchi, 455 F. App'x 707 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

455 F. App'x 707 (Cindy J. Cook v. Anthony A. Petrocchi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related