from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi
SMITH, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
E. GRAVES, JR., Circuit Judge.
Advanced Recovery Systems, Inc. ("ARS") appeals the
district court's grant of summary judgment to Appellee
Robert Sayles on grounds that ARS violated § 807(8) of
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. § 1692e(8). We AFFIRM the district court's
a consumer debt-collection agency. In June and September
2013, ARS sent Sayles notices regarding two allegedly unpaid
debts to St. Dominic's Hospital in Jackson, Mississippi.
Sayles does not remember receiving the notices. He contends
that he first became aware of the unpaid debts in February
2014 when he ran his credit report.
March 5, 2014, Sayles faxed a letter to ARS, disputing the
validity of the debts. He received no
response. On April 16, 2014, Sayles ran his credit report
again. The new report showed that ARS had updated his debt
information after receiving his dispute letter, but it had
failed to mark the St. Dominic's debts as
"disputed." Sayles sued ARS, alleging that it had
violated § 807(8) of the FDCPA.
Sayles initiated his claim, the parties engaged in discovery
and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. During a status
conference, the parties represented to the district court
that no factual issues remained. The court then dismissed the
parties' cross-motions for summary judgment without
prejudice and directed them to brief the sole remaining legal
issue: "[W]hether a violation of [§ 807(8)] is
contingent upon compliance with the validation and dispute
requirements contained in [§ 809 of the FDCPA, ] 15
U.S.C. § 1692g." On August 26, 2016, the district
court entered judgment for Sayles, finding that ARS had
violated § 807(8) of the FDCPA, and that § 807(8)
does not incorporate the validation and dispute requirements
found in § 809. ARS timely appeals from the district
review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying
the same standard as the district court. See Gen.
Universal Sys., Inc. v. HAL, Inc., 500 F.3d 444, 448
(5th Cir. 2007).
contends that the district court granted summary judgment to
Sayles sua sponte without following the procedures
stated in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). ARS also contends that the
district court erred by finding that ARS had violated §
807(8). Finally, ARS contends that, even if it violated
§ 807(8), Sayles did not suffer a concrete injury, and
thus he lacked Article III standing to bring the suit. None
of these arguments are persuasive.
The district court did not violate Fed.R.Civ.P.
district court did not violate Rule 56(f), which states that
"[a]fter giving notice and a reasonable time to respond,
the court may . . . consider summary judgment on its own
after identifying for the parties material facts that may not
be genuinely in dispute." "[D]istrict courts are
widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary
judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party
was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her
evidence." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 326 (1986). Here, the district court gave the parties
adequate notice of, and a reasonable time to respond to, its
intention to consider summary judgment. It did so by
dismissing the parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment and directing them to ...