AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff-Appellant filed a complaint against the Defendant-Appellee for money due on a credit card account. The Defendant did not contest the debt but argued that the Plaintiff’s counsel, acting as a debt collector, was in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellee: Argued that the Plaintiff’s counsel was acting in the capacity of a debt collector in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, despite not contesting the debt itself (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellant: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to a lawsuit for money due instituted by an original creditor (para 2).
• Whether the district court judge exhibited bias against the Defendant (para 3).
• Whether the cumulative error in the case amounted to a violation of due process (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment granting summary judgment and awarding the Plaintiff money due on the credit card account (para 5).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Michael D. Bustamante and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring:
  The Court found no basis for applying the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to the lawsuit for money due by an original creditor, as the Defendant provided no supporting authority for this argument (para 2).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's claim of judicial bias, noting that adverse rulings do not necessarily indicate personal bias or prejudice, and the Defendant failed to provide evidence of bias beyond the adverse rulings (para 3).
  The Court concluded there was no cumulative error leading to a due process violation, as the Defendant did not demonstrate any specific error in the proceedings (para 4).