CORRECTED OPINION
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ November 05, 2002
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 02-11485 CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 01-04252-CV-PCH
BKCY Docket No. 00-01118-BCK-RA
In Re: PABLO MARTINEZ,
Debtor.
_____________________________________________________
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID STERN, P.A.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PABLO MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 5, 2002)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case concerns § 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the
“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.. Pablo Martinez, the plaintiff in a Chapter
XIII adversary proceeding, brought an adversary action in the United States
Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida, alleging that the appellant, Law Offices of David
J. Stern (“Stern”), a law office engaged in debt collection, violated § 1692g by
failing to give appropriate notice as required by statute. The Bankruptcy Court, in
a lengthy opinion and order, found that Stern had violated the Act, granted
Martinez’s motion for summary judgment, denied Stern’s motion, and granted
judgment to Martinez for $1,000 plus cost and attorney fees.
Stern appealed to the District Court, which affirmed with a full opinion. On
motion for rehearing, Stern suggested that the District Court erroneously utilized a
clearly erroneous standard in reviewing the Bankruptcy Court’s decision. The
District Court denied the petition, holding that whether it applied a clearly
erroneous standard or a de novo review standard, the result of the appeal would be
the same.
The issues in this case have been clearly and carefully examined at length
and disposed of by the opinion of the Bankruptcy Court, the opinion of the District
Court, and the District Court order denying the petition for rehearing. We see no
error, and we affirm on the basis of the opinions and judgments of the Bankruptcy
Court and the District Court, and we suggest that they be published in the West
Bankruptcy Reporter.
The decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED.