A District Court judge in Indiana has dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that headaches, sadness, fear, and anxiety are not enough for the plaintiff to have standing to sue in federal court.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Edmonson v. Brennan & Clark can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff defaulted on three auto insurance policies and sued the attorney representing the insurance agent, alleging that the defendants violated the FDCPA by subjecting the plaintiff to “lies, abuse, and threats” while also conducting business under a fictitious name, failing to disclose the defendant was a debt collector, and threatening litigation when it had no plans to sue.
While the defendant sought summary judgment because the underlying debt in question was not a consumer debt, Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana never made it beyond confirming that the plaintiff had standing to pursue her lawsuit, after looking at a recent string of cases in the Seventh Circuit as well as the Supreme Court’s ruling in TransUnion v. Ramirez.
Ultimately, the injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff were not enough to convince Judge Springmann that a concrete injury had occurred. “The Plaintiff fails to allege that she suffered any specific injuries because of the alleged failure of the Defendants to follow the FDCPA,” Judge Springmann wrote. The “mere allegation that she suffered headaches as a result of the Defendants’ actions is insufficient to provide her with standing.”
