Time is money, unless you are seeking standing. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has upheld the dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case against a collection agency and a healthcare provider on the grounds that having to spend time disputing a debt and consulting an attorney does not give the plaintiff standing to sue.
The background: The plaintiff visited a healthcare provider for minor treatment and later returned for a stitch removal procedure, which he paid for up front. After waiting for hours without being seen, the plaintiff left and received a refund. Despite this, the provider billed him again for the unperformed service and sent the account to a collection agency. The plaintiff claimed that multiple collection attempts followed, which led to frustration, wasted time, the need to consult with an attorney, and anxiety over being reported to credit bureaus.
- The plaintiff filed suit under the FDCPA and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, arguing that the erroneous collection efforts caused both emotional distress and wasted time.
- The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, and the plaintiff appealed.
The ruling: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the harms alleged did not rise to the level of a concrete injury required under Article III of the Constitution.
- The court emphasized that “self-imposed injur[ies]” such as spending time disputing a debt or consulting counsel are not sufficient.
- Unlike other cases where plaintiffs suffered tangible harms such as negative credit impacts or financial losses, here the plaintiff did not allege that he paid money, suffered damage to his credit, or that any inaccurate debt reporting had actually reached third parties, the Appeals Court noted.
- The court also highlighted that the disputed $202.88 charge had already been removed from the collection account before the lawsuit was filed and that even if it remained, debts under $500 are unlikely to appear on credit reports under current CFPB guidance.
- In its conclusion, the court wrote: “We will not imagine or piece together an injury sufficient to satisfy Article III, and we are powerless to create jurisdiction by embellishing a deficient allegation of injury.”
