The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case for lack of standing, ruling that the plaintiff was not injured when he was served in person with a collection lawsuit during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic nor because the defendant failed to include an additional disclosure on the summons that the 21-day period to answer the complaint had been waived because of the pandemic.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Van Vleck v. Leikin, Ingber & Winters can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff was served with a complaint in April 2020. Because of his immunocompromised status, he asked his mother to answer the door. His mother informed him that a man with a badge was asking for him. The plaintiff went to the door and the process server handed the plaintiff a copy of the summons and complaint from his clipboard. The plaintiff cried after being served, fearful he had contracted COVID and that he had exposed his parents to the virus. The complaint had not been updated to indicate that Michigan courts had waived the 21-day period to respond to a complaint.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging it violated the FDCPA and state law in Michigan. A District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling the plaintiff lacked standing because he did not suffer a concrete injury.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing he suffered a concrete injury related to abuse of process and battery.
The Appeals Court made quick work of the battery claim, because the plaintiff voluntarily opened the door and voluntarily took the summons and complaint from the process server. The plaintiff was not wearing a mask when he opened the door, the Appeals Court noted. “Had Van Vleck claimed, for example, that the process server shoved the papers involuntarily into his hands without time for Van Vleck to protest or had spoken, shouted, or coughed near his face, then Van Vleck’s alleged harm might bear a closer relationship to battery,” the Court wrote.
