Consumer Law Hinsights is a monthly compilation of nationwide consumer protection cases of interest to financial services and accounts receivable management companies.
Eleventh Circuit Delivers Surprising Decision on Use of Third-Party Vendors in FDCPA Case
The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing and Hunstein appealed. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the requirements of standing could be met in one of three ways: 1) tangible harm in the form of physical injury, financial loss, or emotional distress; 2) a risk of real harm requiring factual allegations that establish substantial, significant, or real danger; and 3) statutory violations. The court found that while Hunstein failed to establish either tangible harm or risk of real harm, he did establish a statutory violation that granted him standing. Their statutory violation analysis involved looking at history and the judgment of Congress. The court took a very textualist view of the law and surprisingly
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Whether you represent FDCPA plaintiffs or defendants, recent decisions provide new insight on how standing issues may affect your case.
The doctrine of standing determining who is a proper plaintiff to bring a particular lawsuit seems straightforward. Most lawyers are familiar with the multi-pronged test flowing from the Supreme Court s 1992 decision in
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury-in-fact, caused by the alleged wrongdoing, and capable of redress by the court.
But recent court decisions underscore the complexity of standing in the context of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Whether you represent FDCPA plaintiffs or defendants, the cases summarized below provide new insight on how standing issues may affect your case.