A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit, but not on the merits as the defendant had sought. Instead, the judge ruled the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his suit and dismissed the case.
The Background: The defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter in June 2023. The letter offered a settlement on the unpaid debt. At the time the letter was sent, a claim based on the debt would have been barred by the statute of limitations. The letter stated, in part:
Paying your outstanding balance can seem stressful. We have a payment offer that allows you to resolve your CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVCS account. You can resolve this account with a one-time payment of $5,079.87 which represents approximately a 55% savings. The deadline to accept this offer[] expires on 06/26/2023. . . THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR AND IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter in the statement violated Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA. The plaintiff originally filed the suit in New Jersey state court, but the defendant removed the case to federal court and then sought a motion to dismiss.
The Ruling: While the defendant’s motion was based on the merits of the case, Judge Jamel K. Semper of the District Court for the District of New Jersey wanted to make sure the plaintiff had standing to pursue his claims in federal court.
- The plaintiff claimed that the letter caused him “confusion and frustrated his ability to intelligently choose a response to the letter” while also causing “Plaintiff to suffer confusion and an informational injury, which frustrated his ability to intelligently choose a response to the letter.”
- Confusion, as astute readers of this site will note, is not enough of an injury for a plaintiff to have standing to sue.
- “The record does not reflect any consequential action or inaction taken by Plaintiff following receipt of Defendant’s letter,” Judge Semper wrote. “Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he suffered any harm because of the letter, the Court finds he has failed to establish Article III standing.”
