In a case that was defended by the teams at Martin Golden Lyons Watts Morgan and Lippes Mathias, a state court judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed a Hunstein case on the grounds the plaintiff lacked standing to sue, saying that there “appears to be little difference” between the agency printing and mailing a letter or it using a third party to do so.
The Background: The plaintiff filed her lawsuit last August, accusing the defendant of violating Pennsylvania’s Unfair Debt Collections Act by providing her name, status as a debtor, and information about her debt to a third party to print and mail a collection letter to the plaintiff. Communicating this information to a third party violates the Act, the plaintiff alleged.
The Ruling: The defendant filed objections to the complaint, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because she suffered no actual injury.
- After going through all of the federal caselaw that has determined that plaintiffs in these kinds of lawsuits do not have standing, Judge Jason J. Legg of the Court of Common Pleas in Susquehanna County turned to the state’s definition of standing. To have standing in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs must have suffered an injury-in-fact, must demonstrate they were aggrieved, and must establish that a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the litigation.
- The plaintiff’s interest was not direct, Judge Legg determined, because her personal information was not widely publicized not was it publicized privately to a large audience. There were no allegations about what harm this caused the plaintiff, the judge noted.
- The interest wasn’t immediate either, Judge Legg ruled, because the plaintiff alleged no casual connection between the defendant and the vendor that caused any injury to her. “Indeed, there appears to be little difference between” the defendant preparing the letter on its own and hiring an outside vendor to perform the same work, the judge wrote.
