The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has overturned a lower court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action, ruling they lacked standing to pursue their lawsuit after claiming a statement that “Interest and other charges may accrue daily” was deceptive and misleading. The ruling hopefully brings an end to a case that had its share of legal twists and turns.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Bassett v. Credit Bureau Services can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant was sued for allegedly violating the FDCPA and Nebraska state law over interest that was charged and how it was disclosed in a collection letter that was sent to the plaintiffs. The defendants sought summary judgment on the grounds the plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but the District Court judge denied the motion. Ultimately, the case went to a trial and a jury ruled in favor of the defendant on all counts. But Judge Joseph Bataillon of the District Court for the District of Nebraska decided to intervene and grant a judgment as a matter of law of his own initiative. Judge Bataillon determined that the Court made an error when it responded to a question from the jury during deliberations because it is against state law for a collector to try and collect interest on a debt before obtaining a judgement. That violation of state law also triggered a violation of the FDCPA, Judge Bataillon ruled.
The judge then awarded $300,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs, a ruling that the defendant appealed, again trying to argue the plaintiff lacked standing to sue.
The plaintiff claimed she suffered a concrete injury when the defendant demanded interest on her debts without a judgment. But the plaintiff never made any payment on the underlying debt. That left her with claiming her injury was in the form of fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendant. But the Appeals Court ruled the plaintiff did not suffer a harm that bore a “close relationship” to the type of injury that relies on misrepresentation.
“Bassett received a letter,” the Appeals Court wrote, citing similar rulings from other Circuit Courts. “Without more — without a concrete injury in fact — Bassett is ‘not seeking to remedy any harm to herself but instead is merely seeking to ensure a defendant’s compliance with regulatory law (and, of course, to obtain some money via the statutory damages).’ “
