All Banking Law, All in One Place. Bloomberg Law: Banking is the comprehensive research solution that powers your practice with access to integrated banking-related legal news, analysis,...
By Chris Bruce
June 6 — A plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case now on appeal has standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said in an early effort to apply a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling ( Bock v. Pressler & Pressler LLP, 3d Cir., No. 15-cv-01056, brief filed 6/3/16 ).
At issue is a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that tests the application of the Supreme Court's May 16 decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, a 6-2 ruling that said the Ninth Circuit failed to fully address Article III standing in the context of a Fair Credit Reporting Act case (95 BBD, 5/17/16).
According to Spokeo, the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing requires two showings — that the injury alleged is “particularized” because it personally affects the plaintiff, and that it is “concrete,” meaning that the injury must actually exist.
The Ninth Circuit addressed the “particularized” element but not the “concrete” prong, the Supreme Court said, adding that both must be shown.
“We have made it clear time and time again that an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized,” the majority said (emphasis in original).
Less than a week later, the Third Circuit asked for briefs on how Spokeo applies to an appeal brought by Pressler & Pressler, a Parsippany, N.J., law firm that sued Daniel Bock to collect a debt.
In 2014, a district court ruled for Bock, saying lawyers at Pressler & Pressler violated the FDCPA by failing to give “meaningful review” to the complaint filed against Bock (127 BBD, 7/2/14).
According to the district court, the complaint against Bock was reviewed by a Pressler & Pressler attorney for approximately four seconds.
In a brief filed June 3, the CFPB said Bock suffered “concrete harm sufficient to establish Article III standing,” citing his allegations that Pressler & Pressler misrepresented “that an attorney was meaningfully involved” in the suit against him.
The FDCPA “grants consumers a legal right to truthful information in their dealings with debt collectors,” the CFPB said, citing the Supreme Court's 1982 ruling in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman (455 U.S. 363).
Bock's counsel, Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler in Washington, D.C., took a similar direction in a separate June 3 brief
He said Spokeo itself recognizes that denial of information is sufficient to satisfy the demands of Article III.
“Mr. Bock has suffered that very injury,” the brief said. “Under the FDCPA, consumers like Mr. Bock have a statutory right to truthful information concerning the debt-collection process.”
But a June 3 brief by Manuel H. Newburger of Barron & Newburger in Austin, Texas, who represents the law firm, said Spokeo supports dismissal of Bock's case.
According to the brief, Bock already has stipulated that he suffered damages only from a procedural violation of the FDCPA.
“His sole claim is essentially that the Pressler & Pressler attorney did not spend enough time reviewing the two-sentence, form allegation asserting the book account claim on which he was sued and that Pressler & Pressler did not do enough work in representing its own client,” the brief said. “It has often been said that the plaintiff is the master of his own complaint, and in this case Mr. Bock alleged nothing that would or could cause a concrete injury.”
The CFPB's brief is its latest in the case. In August, the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission submitted a joint brief in support of Bock (158 BBD, 8/17/15)
It also follows an April skirmish between the CFPB and Pressler & Pressler, when the law firm and a debt buyer agreed to pay $2.5 million to resolve administrative claims of illegal collection and litigation practices (80 BBD, 4/26/16).
To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Bruce in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Ferullo at email@example.com
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)