Brunett v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.

Plaintiff-debtor lacked standing to bring action under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that defendant-debt collector sent false dunning letter that offered to settle debt at 50% of what was owed, but informed plaintiff that if creditor ended up forgiving more than $600, it would be required to report said forgiveness as taxable income to IRS on Schedule 1099C. Record showed that plaintiff essentially asked defendant to forgive entire $1,012 debt, and thus plaintiff would be subject to such reporting. While Dist. Ct. dismissed case on merits, plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring instant action because she could not establish any concrete injury arising out of said alleged violation, where: (1) plaintiff conceded that dunning letter had not injured her; (2) plaintiff did not pay something that she did not owe; and (3) statement regarding obligation to report forgiveness of debt to IRS did not affect her credit rating or discourage anyone from doing business with her. Fact that complaint purported to allege violation of substantive as opposed to procedural right under FDCPA or that plaintiff claimed that she was confused by dunning letter did not require different result.