Wendy Yunker v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23384
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Allianceone appeals district court denial of its motion to reconsider summary-judgment grant to Yunker on §1692g FDCPA claim.
- Yunker alleged multiple FDCPA and FCCPA violations; Count VII claimed §1692g disclosure was eclipsed by immediacy language.
- District court granted summary judgment to Yunker on §1692g, finding dunning letter inconsistent with 30-day dispute period.
- Allianceone moved for partial reconsideration; district court denied for waiver, lack of new authority, and disagreement without new precedents.
- Allianceone then offered judgment under Rule 68; Yunker accepted; final judgment entered in Yunker’s favor; Allianceone appealed, raising mootness and merits questions.
- Court dismissed appeal as moot and lacking a justiciable controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does settlement moot the appeal? | Yunker | Allianceone | Yes; moot. |
| Is there a justiciable controversy to review §1692g? | Yunker | Allianceone | No; settlement collapses controversy. |
| Does Electrical Fittings prevent merits review here? | Yunker | Allianceone | Inapplicable; merits review not available due to mootness. |
| Did Allianceone waive §1692g arguments by failing to address them in response? | Yunker | Allianceone | Court treated waiver as part of mootness analysis; no live issue. |
| Can the court still reach merits despite intent to reserve appeal? | Allianceone | Yunker | No; settlement and final judgment foreclose relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., 931 F.2d 744 (11th Cir. 1991) (settlement generally renders a case moot; exceptions do not apply here)
- Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241 (1939) (jurisdiction to correct procedural errors, not merits when no live controversy)
- Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980) (review limited to procedural error rather than merits in mootness context)
- Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus. Inc., 798 F.2d 1372 (11th Cir. 1986) (distinguishes settlement scenarios with reserved rights to appeal)
- Crown Media. LLC v. Gwinnett County, GA, 380 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2004) (case-or-controversy requirement; mootness considerations in appellate jurisdiction)