In Salvati v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., N.A., — Fed.Appx. —-, 2014 WL 3719186 (3rd Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that an FDCPA Plaintiff need not have actually paid the illegal fees in order to sue under the FDCPA.
The District Court held that dismissal of Count IV was warranted because “Salvati has paid none of the alleged illegal fees and costs and, thus, has not suffered any actual damages” in connection with his FDCPA claim. J.A. 24a. However, the District Court’s conclusion was error because it ignored the fact that, under the FDCPA, a plaintiff may collect statutory damages even if he has suffered no actual damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a); see also Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Lamar, 503 F.3d 504, 513 (6th Cir.2007) ( “[A] consumer may recover statutory damages [under the FDCPA] if the debt collector violates the FDCPA even if the consumer suffered no actual damages.”); Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 307 (2d Cir.2003) (“[C]ourts have held that actual damages are not required for standing under the FDCPA.”). See generally F.T.C. v. Check Investors, Inc., 502 F.3d 159, 166 (3d Cir.2007) (“The FDCPA allows consumers to sue an offending creditor for actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs, as well as statutory damages up to $1, 000.”) (emphasis added). The District Court incorrectly concluded that because Salvati had not paid any of the allegedly unlawful fees or expenses, the FDCPA claim must fail. Additionally, we are not persuaded by McCabe’s suggestion that, in dismissing Count IV, the District Court exercised its discretion in denying Salvati statutory damages under the FDCPA. See McCabe’s Br. 19. The District Court’s opinion is silent on the issue of statutory damages under the FDCPA and nowhere did the District Court indicate that it was exercising such discretion. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand the District Court’s dismissal as to Count IV.