Brumberger v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 84 F. App'x 458 (5th Cir. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Brumberger v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 84 F. App'x 458 (5th Cir. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“brumberger does not allege that he was in default at the time sallie mae began servicing his loans. thus, brumberger fails to show in his complaint that he is entitled to relief under the fdcpa, and the district court correctly dismissed his claim under 12(b)(6).”
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wesner v. Southall (txnd, 2023-04-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Wesner v. Southall
N.D. Tex. · 2023 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
brumberger does not allege that he was in default at the time sallie mae began servicing his loans. thus, brumberger fails to show in his complaint that he is entitled to relief under the fdcpa, and the district court correctly dismissed his claim under 12(b)(6).
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Isner-Monticello v. Nelnet, Inc.
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
by its plain terms the fdcpa does not apply to sallie mae because brumberger does not allege that he was in default at the time sallie mae began servicing his loans.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zemeckis
D. Haw. · 2025 · confidence medium
Brumberger v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 84 F. App’x 458, 459 (5th Cir. 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MASSUNG v. NAVIENT CORPORATION
W.D. Pa. · 2024 · confidence medium
Cal. Mar. 8, 2016) (explaining that numerous courts have found that student loan servicers that begin servicing before a loan goes into default are not debt collectors under 7 the FDCPA) (citing Brumberger v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 84 F. App'x 458, 459 (5th Cir. 2004)); Caione v. Navient Corp., No. CV 16-0806, 2016 WL 4432687 , at *5 (D.N.J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deutsch Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-R4 v. Maylois Conerly Price, (a/K/A Maylois Conerly, Maylois Price, Maylois Bacot, Maylois Conerly Bacot)
La. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Moreover, “[u]nder the FDCPA, a debt collector does not include ‘“any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity ... concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person.’” Brumberger v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 84 F.App’x. 458, 459 (5th Cir.2004) (citing 15 U.S.C § 1692a(6)(F)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. Bac Home Loans Servicing Lp
D.D.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
Oct.28, 2010) (granting motion to dismiss on plaintiffs FDCPA claims because “[alb-sent an allegation that plaintiffs loan was in default when [the defendant] acquired it, [the defendant] is not a debt collector and this is not subject to the FDCPA”) (citing Brumberger v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 84 Fed.Appx. 458, 459 (5th Cir.2004) (affirming dismissal of FDCPA claim against student loan servicer because “[b]y its plain terms the FDCPA does not apply” absent an allegation that plaintiff “was in default at the time Sallie Mae began servicing his loans”)); Ramirez-Alvarez v. Auro…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Edmond v. American Educational Services/ National Collegiate Trust
D.D.C. · 2010 · confidence medium
Brumberger v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 84 Fed.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Keeton v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
D.D.C. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Cal. 2009); see also Brumberger v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 84 Fed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Williams v. Edelman
S.D. Fla. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Brumberger v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 84 Fed.Appx. 458, 459 (5th Cir.2004) (upholding district court’s decision that FDCPA did not apply in the absence of allegations that loans were in default at the time of servicing); Schlosser v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534, 538 (7th Cir.2003) (“If the loan is current when it is acquired, the relationship between the assignee and the debtor is, for purposes of regulating communications and collection practices, effectively the same as that between the originator and the debtor” and the acquirer is not subject to the FDCPA provi…
Jeffrey BRUMBERGER Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SALLIE MAE SERVICING CORPORATION Defendant-Appellee
03-30440.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 7, 2004.
84 F. App'x 458
VaEerie W. Oxner, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Laura Hawkins Davis, Andrew Lewis Kramer, Smith & Fawer, New Orleans, LA for Defendant-Appellee.
King, Higginbotham, Wiener.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Unpublished
PER CURIAM. *

Jeffrey Brumberger (Brumberger) appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claim under the Fair Debt CoEection Practices Act (FDCPA) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Brumberger argues that the district court erred in finding that Sallie Mae Servicing Corporation (Sallie Mae) does[*459] not meet the definition of a “debt collector” under the FDCPA.

A district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim is subject to de novo review. Scanlan v. Texas A & M University, 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir.2003). The motion may be granted “only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.” Id.

Under the FDCPA, a debt collector does not include “any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity ... concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6)(F). By its plain terms the FDCPA does not apply to Sallie Mae because Brumberger does not allege that he was in default at the time Sallie Mae began servicing his loans. Thus, Brumberger fails to show in his complaint that he is entitled to relief under the FDCPA, and the district court correctly dismissed his claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Perry v. Stewart Title Co., 756 F.2d 1197, 1208 (5th Cir.1985). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.