Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kerr v. Dubowsky
Citation: 71 F. App'x 656Docket: No. 03-15156; D.C. No. CV-02-00712-PMP(LRL)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 24, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Thomas M. Kerr appealed pro se against the district court's judgment dismissing his claims against attorney Peter Dubowsky for violating the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. The court reviewed the case de novo regarding summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim. The appeal was affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed Kerr’s claim under § 1692e, as well as granted summary judgment on his § 1692g claims, due to Kerr's failure to file his lawsuit within one year of the alleged violations, as mandated by § 1692k(d). The court referenced Naas v. Stolman, stating that the statute of limitations begins when a lawsuit is filed. Kerr’s claim under § 1692c(c) was dismissed because he did not allege that he disputed the debt in writing or requested that Dubowsky cease communications. Additionally, the claim under § 1692d was dismissed since Kerr only described Dubowsky's May 2001 call as "unwanted," lacking sufficient allegations that the call was intended to harass, oppress, or abuse. The court declined to consider Kerr's argument regarding denial of discovery, citing his failure to request additional time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) or to demonstrate that the sought information would have affected the summary judgment outcome. The decision was affirmed, with a note that the ruling is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.