In
O’Toole v. Bob Roache Law, a Seventh Circuit District Court in Indiana granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case for lack of standing. In its holding, the court emphasized that allegations of “annoyance or confusion” without allegations of detrimental action taken as a result of the alleged annoyance or confusion, is insufficient to establish an injury in fact necessary to confer standing to an FDCPA plaintiff.
In that case, the plaintiffs incurred a debt with Smokey Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc., and the defendant sent the plaintiffs a collection letter to collect on the debt. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s letter provided “confusing and conflicting information” regarding their rights under the FDCPA and, consequently, that “‘[the] [Plaintiffs’] rights under [the FDCPA] [had] been violated and the Plaintiffs ha[d] been damage[d] thereby.’”
In Iowa, Reuters reports the 8th Circuit District Court has ruled that a lower court decision to sentence a former DuPont employee who took trade secrets to his new employer 42 months in prison for the crime was correct in doing so. Federal guidelines suggest zero to six months in prison for the crime. The lawyers for the accused argued that the lower court judge “abused her discretion” in deciding on 42 months in prison rather than a maximum of six months.