Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue instant Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim, even though plaintiff alleged that defendant-debt collector violated FDCPA be sending deceptive collection letter that attempted to collect on debt on which statute of limitations had expired. Plaintiff asserted that letter, which informed her that defendant would neither sue her for debt nor report it to credit agency, and that her credit score would not be affected regardless of payment or nonpayment, was confusing, since it contained possibility that she could be sued on debt in future. Ct. of Appeals, though, found that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue instant claim, since plaintiff failed to allege any concrete injury, where plaintiff neither made payment on debt, promised to do so or otherwise act to her detriment in response to anything in or omitted from collection letter. Moreover, plaintiff’s responses to collection letter, by calling defendant to dispute debt and contacting her attorney, were not cognizable harms, and plaintiff’s allegation that confusion arose from said letter is not concrete injury in FDCPA context. As such, Dist. Ct.’s $350,000 judgment in plaintiff’s class action was vacated and case was remanded to Dist. Ct. with instructions to dismiss case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dissent filed.)