American Express Bank, FSB, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0563

American Express Bank, FSB,
Respondent,

vs.

Abdulkarim Dahir,
Appellant.

Filed December 4, 2017
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CV-16-3540

Shawn J. Anderson, Amy Goltz, Gurstel Law Firm, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Abdulkarim Mohamed Dahir, Blaine, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.
2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant, holder of a credit card from respondent bank, challenges the grant of
summary judgment to respondent arguing that there are genuine issues of material fact in
dispute. We affirm.1
FACTS
A cardmember agreement dated June 26, 2011, lists respondent American Express
Bank, FSB, as the i ssuer, Twin Cities Care Services as the company n ame, and appellant
Abdulkarim M. Dahir as the cardmember n ame. A statement dated October 28, 2014,
informed appellant that his new balance was $13,379. 59, payment was due by
November 22, 2014, his account was past due and in default, and the balance was due in
full. Appellant did not make the payment.
In August 2015, respondent served a summons and complaint on appellant, alleging
that: (1) he applied for credit from respondent; (2) respondent issued him a credit account;
(3) he accepted and used the credit account and thereby agreed to abide by its terms and
conditions; (4) he owed r espondent $13,379.59 for credit on or before July 8, 2015;
(5) appellant failed to pay that amount on respondent’s demand and was therefore indebted

1 Appellant also raises two new issues on appeal: whether those sued by collection agencies
have due -process rights under the federal and state constitutions and whether pro se
defendants are fairly treated in court cases involving law firms that are also debt collectors.
Because these issues were not raised in the district court during the summary judgment
proceedings, the district court never addressed them, and there is no decision for us to
review. See Thiele v. Stich , 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (holding that appellate
courts do not generally consider matters not argued to and considered by a district court).
3
to respondent; (6) respondent had provided appellant with invoices and statements of
account, which appellant kept and to which he did not object within a reasonable time; and
(7) the full account between the parties showed a balance of $13,379.59 due to respondent
from appellant. Respondent sought payment of that amount plus costs and disbursements.
In September 2015, appellant, pro se, served an answer disputing the application
and issuance of a credit account and the amount owed, denying any personal or individual
relationship with respondent and any failure to pay, and saying appellant was “confused as
to the role of” the law firm representing respondent because the firm also claimed to be a
debt collector. Appellant was served with discovery and requests for admissions in August
2016; respondent filed an affidavit of service by mail to appellant’s correc t address.
Appellant did not respond to the discovery or the requests and later said he had not received
them.
Respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing that : (1) it had a binding and
enforceable contract with appellant, which appellant breached by failing to pay the amount
owed; (2) respondent stated an amount to which appellant did not object by disputing any
of the specific charges on the account and appellant defaulted by failing to make timely
payments and therefore owed the balance on the account; (3) federal law gave appellant 60
days from the receipt of disputed charges to notify respondent in writing of billing errors,
appellant had not notified respondent of any error, and his failure to do so was a consent to
the accuracy of the account; (4) appellant failed to cooperate with discovery and raised no
specific fact issues to be tried; and (5) respondent sought judgment against appellant in the
4
amount of $13,379.59 plus costs and disbursements. Following a hearing, the district court
granted respondent’s motion. Appellant challenges the grant of summary judgment.
D E C I S I O N
On an appeal from summary judgment, this court reviews de novo both whether
there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application
of the law. STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. 2002).
The district court noted in its memorandum that:
In this case, the complaint lays out a basic consumer
credit debt claim. [Respondent’s] summary judgment
pleadings consist of the expected argument and attachments.
[Appellant’s] answer contains a general denial. [Appellant]
did not respond to [respondent’s] discovery demands which
included a set of Requests for Admissions. [Appellant] asserts
he never rece ived them but an affidavit of service by mail to
the correct address has been filed. [Appellant] produced a
demand letter addressed to an entity other than himself as proof
that the debt is owed by another and [respondent] has sued the
wrong party.
[Appellant’s] claims are frivolous. The note was signed
by [appellant] in his individual capacity and as the authorized
signatory for a corporation. [Appellant] is personally liable for
the debt. There is no basis to [the] claim that [respondent] must
first proceed against the corporation or may only proceed
against the corporation. [Appellant’s] “pierce the corporate
veil” argument is similarly flawed. [Respondent] is not
seeking to disregard the corporate structure. [R espondent] is
simply proceeding against a party to the note.

Appellant argues on appeal that he did not receive the request for admissions and
implies that whether he received the request for admissions is a genuine issue of material
fact that should have precluded summary judgment. But whether appellant received the
request for admissions is not material to the issue on summary judgment: whether
5
respondent was entitled to judgment against appellant for the amount of appellant’s debt
and costs and disbursements. The district court correctly concluded that no genuine issue
of material fact precluded summary judgment on that issue.
Appellant also argues that the district court erred in concluding that the parties had
a contract because respondent lacked standing, an issue appellant claims to have raised to
the district court. At the hearing, the district court noted that it had not received any
paperwork from appellant and asked him, “[W]hat’s wrong with [respondent’s] motion [for
summary judgment]?” Appellant then produced a letter dated December 22, 2016, from
respondent, saying, “If you look, . . . this is the same case with the different Defendant
written there. Basically, what this law firm is saying [is] that there is someone else that
they have not even mentioned in the complaint. And in my memo, I’m saying, simply put,
[that] they’re suing the wrong person here.” Appellant later reiterated this: “[T]he basic
argument is that I’m not the Defendant in this case. It’s up to . . . [respond ent] . . . [T]he
burden is on them to show that I am the person they should be suing in the first pla ce.
That’s the issue . . . .”
Respondent’s attorney refuted this argument:
With respect to the letter dated December 22 nd bearing the
name of Twin City C are Service at the . . . address where
[appellant] resides, that is the joint cardholder for the American
Express account at issue here. And if I could refer the Court’s
attention to Exhibit A to [respondent’s] affidavit . . . [it] is a
Card Member Agreem ent and on the first page of the Card
Member Agreement it contains the names of Twin Cities Care
Service and [appellant’s] name.
Page 5 of that agreement states under words we use in
the agreement, “You a gree to jointly and severally . . . be
6
bound by the terms of the agreement.” Accordingly,
[appellant] is responsible for the card at issue today.

When asked for his response, appellant said,
This is a business account. . . . I was an officer of the
business. . . . [T ]he issue being raised . . . appears to be a
piercing the corporate veil issue. I’m not liable and that the
business doesn’t hold for any misgivings or any misjudgments
of the business as long as this was something that I was doing
in good faith for the business.
And the issue isn’t here about this . . . account that was
owned by a business[. I]t’s not a piercing the corporate veil
issue and it’s about collection and I’m not liable for this
collection.

But the cardmember a greement stated that appellant was jointly and severally liable for
expenses incurred on the account, and he offers no legal support for his view that he is not
liable.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to respondent.
Affirmed.