A New York state Appeals Court has reversed a lower court’s ruling, denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling the motion should have been granted because the plaintiff lacked standing to file the lawsuit in the first place.
The background: The plaintiff received a number of letters attempting to collect on an unpaid medical debt. The plaintiff, who was covered by Medicaid, believed she did not legally owe the debt that was being collected upon so she filed this lawsuit, accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA. The plaintiff sought to recover statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 plus costs and attorneys’ fees.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing. A state court judge denied the motion, which the defendant appealed.
- The order did not indicate on what grounds the state court judge used to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss or whether the plaintiff had standing to sue or not.
The ruling: The appeals court made short work of reversing the decision not to grant the motion to dismiss. Because the plaintiff did not allege that she suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of the alleged violations of the FDCPA, she did not have standing to pursue the action, the appeals court ruled. The court cited three different rulings it has issued over the years, including one other involving the same defendant, to support its ruling that a plaintiff must allege to have suffered a concrete injury in order to have standing.
- The state court judge, therefore, should have granted the motion to dismiss.
