The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has remanded a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case back to the District Court to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to file his lawsuit in the first place. The plaintiff, who appealed nearly five years ago, will now have to prove he suffered a concrete injury in order for the case to proceed.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Nyberg v. Portfolio Recovery Associates can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff was sued by the defendant in Oregon state court for an unpaid credit card debt. That suit was dismissed for failure to prosecute by the defendant, and the reasons why the defendant chose not to pursue litigation are unknown.
The plaintiff filed his lawsuit against the defendant, accusing it of violating the FDCPA by falsely asserting a claim for account stated, bringing an account stated claim to evade the statute of limitations, bringing a claim that was barred by the statute of limitations, and overstating the amount that was owed. A Magistrate judge granted summary judgment for the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
The topic of whether the plaintiff had standing to sue was never raised during the initial phase of the case, and was only raised when the defendant brought it up after the ruling had been appealed. Because standing was never raised, the plaintiff did not have an opportunity to present “specific facts” that support his standing to sue, the Court of Appeals ruled, and remanded the case back to the District Court to address the plaintiff’s standing.
