Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Art. III Standing

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Nabozny v. Optio Sols. LLC, No. 22-1202, 2023 WL 6967048, at *3–6 (7th Cir. Oct. 23, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit followed the 11th Circuit's decision in Hunstein.   Nabozny alleges in her complaint that Optio's violation of § 1692c(b) harmed her by “invading her privacy.” She elaborates a bit in her brief, arguing that because Optio… Read More

In Bassett v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., Nos. 21-2864, 22-1206, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4428, at *7 (8th Cir. Feb. 24, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed the district court's judgment for the class, finding that the Plaintiff had no Art. III Standing. The procedural background was as follows: The collectors sent Bassett (and her deceased… Read More

In In re Argon Credit Llc, Nos. 16-39654, 21-00048, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 2543, at *8 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sep. 15, 2022), Judge Thorne found that a deceptive letter that causes a Plaintiff to pay sums that the Plaintiff otherwise would not owe (in this case, because the debts were void or discharged by bankrutpcy) confers standing. Plaintiffs next claim is… Read More

The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the Hunstein  decision that had held that sharing information with a third party vendor might constitute a violation of the FDCPA.  The decision does not make a ruling on the merits but, instead, found that the Plaintiff had failed to allege a concrete harm that would provide Article III standing.  A copy… Read More

In Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C., No. 21-50958, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22649, at *9 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2022), the Court of Appeals dismissed sua sponte an action where class certification had been granted because the representative lacked Article III standing.  The Court of Appeals summarized its holding as follows: On appeal, MVBA does not contest… Read More

In Fernandez v. Progressive Mgmt. Sys., No. 3:21-cv-00841-BEN-WVG, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120329 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2022), Judge Benitez allowed a UCL claim to proceed predicated on a Rosenthal Act violation where the customer did not allege to have paid money to the defendant. Defendant, however, is incorrect that Plaintiff must have paid EACMC monies to establish UCL standing.… Read More

In Keller v. Northstar Location Servs., No. 21-cv-3389, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157820, at *4-6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), Judge Johnson-Coleman kept jurisdiction over an FDCPA-Hunstein case despite the consumer's objection that the SCOTUS' decision in Ramirez deprived her of Article III standing. With this standard in mind, the Court turns to an Eleventh Circuit opinion where that court concluded… Read More

In Ward v. Nat'l Patient Account Servs. Sols., No. 20-5902, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24369, at *9 (6th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found no Article III standing for a pure procedural violation of the FDCPA. To establish that the statutory violations here constitute concrete injury, Ward must show that NPAS, Inc.'s failure… Read More

In In re FDCPA Mailing Vendor Cases, Civil Action No. 21-2312, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139848, at *14-19 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2021), Judge Brown dismissed a series of Hunstein-based cases due to lack of standing under Ramirez.  Each case addressed herein invokes a recently-developed "mailing vendor" theory - alleging that the defendant debt collector employed an outside firm to print and… Read More

In Garland v. Orlans, PC, No. 20-1527, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16107, at *7 (6th Cir. May 28, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found no Article III standing arising from a debt collector's dunning letters sent to the Plaintiff. The Court of Appeals found that the confusion the Plaintiff allegedly suffered from the dunning letter did… Read More

In Johnson v. Heuer Law Offices, No. 19-CV-1171-JPS-JPS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56709 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 25, 2021), Judge Stadtmueller granted summary judgment to a debt collection law firm who was alleged not to have “meaningful involvement” in the sending of dunning letters.  The Judge Stadmueller held that although the Plaintiff clearly had emotional distress tied to the law firm’s… Read More

In Nettles v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 19-3327, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 40012 (7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit declined to address arbitration of an FDCPA case because of lack of Art. III jurisdiction to start. Most of the briefing concerns the arbitration issue, but the parties also identify a possible problem with… Read More

In Cooper v. Atl. Credit & Fin., No. 19-12177, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23719 (11th Cir. July 28, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found no Article III standing for an overshadowing claim under the FDCPA. Here, Cooper's alleged injuries are just  as inchoate, if not more so. She does not allege that, without the purportedly confusing… Read More

In Frank v. Gaos, the SCOTUS today placed further standing impediments to privacy and other purely statutory/no damages class actions, finding, following objections to the class action settlement, that the case should be remanded to determine standing under Spokeo.  The background facts were as follows: Three named plaintiffs brought class action claims against Google for alleged violations of the Stored Communications Act.… Read More

In Hagy v. Demers & Adams, 2018 WL 914953, at *3–5 (C.A.6 (Ohio), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held that "[w]e know of no circuit court decision since Spokeo that endorses an anything-hurts-so-long-as-Congress-says-it-hurts theory of Article III injury.".  Thus, the 6th Circuit held that a bare FDCPA violation without correlative injury did not vest Article III… Read More

In Provo v. Rady Childrens Hospital-San Diego, 2016 WL 4625556, at *2 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Miller dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim with leave to amend because the Plaintiffs had not pleaded any concrete injury under Spokeo.  Here, the only harm Plaintiffs plead is in reference to phone calls made by CMRE's codefendant, Rady, which Plaintiffs allege caused “undue stress, anxiety, and frustration....”… Read More

In Quinn v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2016 WL 4264967, at *4–5 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge Bucklo rejected a Spokeo challenge to an FDCPA class action grounded in the Defendant's alleged contact with represented debtors. I am unpersuaded. As an initial matter, despite SLS's suggestion to the contrary, Spokeo does not stand for the proposition that a procedural violation of a… Read More

In Daubert v. NRA Group, LLC, 2016 WL 4245560, at *4 (M.D.Pa., 2016), Judge Caputo found that a Douglass-glassine window violation confers Article III standing under Spokeo.  Similarly, here, Plaintiff's injury is also the unlawful disclosure of legally protected information. This injury is “clearly particularized,” as Plaintiff alleges that it was his personal identifying information that was disclosed. This injury… Read More