A District Court judge in Tennessee has ruled a plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case against a defendant that was accused of misrepresenting that a payment plan would be offered and whose representative was rude and aggressive, allegedly going as far as to say that the plaintiff would never be able to repay the debt and did not deserve respect because she owed the debt in the first place.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Hall v. I.Q. Data can be accessed by clicking here.
Taken from the complaint — The plaintiff was contacted by the defendant to collect on an unpaid apartment lease debt and told the defendant she was out of work and not able to pay. She asked if a payment plan would be available and was told she would be able to set one up when she was able to start making payments. Later that month, the plaintiff contacted the defendant to set up the plan. Allegedly, the defendant refused to set up a plan and demanded payment in full. If the full payment was not made, the debt would reported to the plaintiff’s credit, according to the defendant, and that interest would start accruing. If the plaintiff did not make a payment, she would never be able to repay the debt because of the interest that was accruing, according to the defendant. The plaintiff claimed to have asked to be treated with respect and the representative allegedly said she did not deserve respect because of the debt. Eventually, the defendant hung up on the plaintiff. When the plaintiff called back, the defendant hung up on her again.
The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of engaging in rude and deceptive behavior and making incessant calls, all of which violated the FDCPA.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because she did not suffer a concrete injury.
The plaintiff alleged to have suffered an emotional injury, but Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr., of the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee ruled “the allegations in her complaint do not rise to the extreme level of emotional distress that has been held to be an injury in fact.”
While noting that the allegations made by the plaintiff “reflect poorly” on the defendant, what the defendant allegedly did was not so outrageous that it would cause extreme emotional distress, Judge Mays ruled.
The plaintiff also claimed to have standing because the debt was allegedly accruing interest, but Judge Mays determined the defendant was under no obligation to offer a payment plan to the plaintiff. “… the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to conclude that Defendant made a definite promise of a payment plan and violated that promise,” Judge Mays wrote. “Absent such allegations, Plaintiff cannot establish standing because she cannot show that her purported injury (the increased interest on the debt at issue) is traceable to a legal wrong of the Defendant (its violation of a legally binding promise of a payment plan).”
