A District Court judge in North Dakota has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit that accused it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to disclose in a collection notice whether interest was continuing to accrue on the debt, ruling the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not suffer a concrete injury.
The background: The plaintiff incurred a medical debt that was later placed with the defendant for collection. The defendant sent a collection notice to the plaintiff that identified the balance due as $284.89, which included $0.28 in interest. The letter did not specify whether interest would continue to accrue or whether it had been waived.
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the lack of disclosure violated the FDCPA and caused her confusion, emotional distress, and a reallocation of funds that she otherwise could have used to partially pay the debt.
The ruling: Judge Daniel Hovland of the District Court for the District of North Dakota concluded that the plaintiff failed to allege she suffered a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing, ruling that confusion and emotional distress on their own do not amount to a legal injury.
- “The state of confusion is not itself an injury,” the judge wrote, citing Ojogwu v. Rodenburg L. Firm. “Nor does stress by itself with no physical manifestations and no qualified medical diagnosis amount to a concrete harm.”
- Judge Hovland also noted that the plaintiff made only vague assertions that she “could have used” funds to pay the debt but chose not to. However, she did not allege that interest continued to accrue, that she paid more as a result, or that she was otherwise financially harmed. “Her bare allegation of emotional harm lacks the factual enhancement necessary to demonstrate a concrete injury,” he wrote.
- Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that she spent time and money mitigating a risk of future financial harm, finding no factual allegations supporting such a claim.
