Stating that a plaintiff suffered a financial loss without necessarily going into specifics about what those losses actually were was enough for a District Court judge in Michigan to deny a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Rider v. Stillman, P.C. can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff, seeking to recover an unpaid debt. The plaintiff answered the complaint and denied he owed the debt, stating he believed himself to be the victim of credit card fraud. The plaintiff completed an ID Theft affidavit — at the defendant’s request. The plaintiff ultimately hired an attorney, who submitted another affidavit. The defendant then dismissed the collection lawsuit.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA by pursuing a complaint and attempting to collect on a debt that the plaintiff did not owe. The defendant, which had already obtained a motion for judgment on the pleadings for one of the three counts, then filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing to sue.
Agreeing with the defendant that the plaintiff did not suffer reputational harm and that suffering from stress and anxiety were not sufficient to confer standing, Judge Linda V. Parker of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan disagreed with the defendant on the plaintiff’s claim to have suffered a financial loss.
The defendant argued that the phrase was too vague and did not allege that the plaintiff made a payment of any kind, but that fact is irrelevant, Judge Parker ruled.