A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action case, ruling the plaintiff lacked standing to sue after receiving a letter that referenced a current creditor which was purportedly not licensed to collect in The Garden State.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Valentine v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn can be accessed by clicking here.
This is the second time the plaintiff has attempted to sue the defendant for virtually the same alleged violation of the FDCPA, with the exception that this lawsuit named the collection operation attempting to collect on the debt.
In both cases, the defendants sought motions to dismiss, claiming the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because she did not suffer a concrete injury. Having only claimed that receiving the letter “deprived Plaintiff and other New Jersey consumers of truthful, non-misleading, information in connection with Defendants’ attempt to collect a debt” the plaintiff made no claims to have suffered “downstream consequences” or “adverse effects” as a result of receiving the letter, noted Judge William J. Martini of the District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The plaintiff attempted to cite two cases that were ruled on after the Supreme Court’s ruling in TransUnion v. Ramirez, but those cases relied on pre-TransUnion authority, Judge Martini noted.
Judge Martini gave the plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies, and if that does not happen, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
