A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case — albeit on the grounds the plaintiff lacked standing — after the defendant was accused of failing to fully inform the plaintiff about what would happen if a partial payment was made on a time-barred debt.
The Background: Back in 2021, the plaintiff received an email from the defendant. The email included a disclosure that stated, “The law limits how long you can be sued on this debt. Because of the age of the debt, LVNV Funding LLC cannot sue you for it, and LVNV Funding LLC cannot report it to any credit reporting agency.” The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the email violated Sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA because the disclosure did not mention that the statute of limitations would restart if a partial payment were made. While the defendant’s summary judgment motion was pending, the case was reassigned to Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and she requested a hearing on whether the plaintiff had standing to sue.
The Ruling: The plaintiff claimed she had standing because she was harmed by the email since it put her “at material risk” of recommencing the statute of limitations had she made a partial payment on the debt. While the plaintiff did not make a partial payment, she claimed the FDCPA provides her with the legally protected right not to be misled or treated unfairly.
- Conceding that the risk of suffering an injury from receiving a misleading letter was too speculative, the plaintiff attempted to prove another theory — the email confused her and that made her unable to adequately respond to the email. And while confusion is also not enough to confer standing, the plaintiff’s suit was based on her belief that the email was misleading because had she taken action, she would have exposed herself to liability.
- “In other words, Ms. Emel’s entire case is based on the potential harm she could have faced if she had acted in response to the Email,” Judge Mehalchick wrote. “She cannot now for the sake of standing argue that she was injured by not responding to the Email.”
