Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:21-cv-00692_de4> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:21-cv-00692_de4 RegisterActionDate "2021-02-10" @default.
- ilnd;;1:21-cv-00692_de4 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint 1 , which is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). According to the complaint, Plaintiff defaulted on a loan that Defendant CU Recovery, Inc. ("CUR," a debt collection agency) described in a letter to Plaintiff as having a total principal of $13,330.17. Plaintiff alleges, however, that CUR reported the loan to TransUnion (a credit reporting agency) as having a lower balance of only $12,799.00. Plaintiff's complaint contends that CUR violated the FDCPA's prohibition on false representations because "[e]ither the information communicated to Plaintiff in [CUR's] Letter" was inaccurate "or the credit information communicated to TransUnion" was inaccurate. 1 25. The allegations raise questions about whether Plaintiff suffered an injury in fact, and thus has standing to sue under the Seventh Circuit's recent case law. The Seventh Circuit has addressed the issue of standing under the FDCPA in numerous recent opinions. See, e.g., Nettles v. Midland Funding LLC, 983 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2020); Bazile v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 983 F.3d 274 (7th Cir. 2020); Spuhler v. State Collection Service, Inc., 983 F.3d 282 (7th Cir. 2020); Brunett v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 982 F.3d 1067 (7th Cir. 2020); Gunn v. Thrasher, Buschmann & Voelkel, PC, 982 F.3d 1069 (7th Cir. 2020); Larkin v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 982 F.3d 1060 (7th Cir. 2020). Even assuming that either CUR's letter to Plaintiff or CUR's report to TransUnion was inaccurate, Plaintiff's complaint does not explain how Plaintiff was harmed by this inaccuracy. Plaintiff alleges that she was confused by the discrepancy, see 1 45, but as Brunett held, "the state of confusion is not itself an injury." Brunett, 982 F.3d at 1068. "A debtor confused by a dunning letter may be injured if she acts, to her detriment, on that confusionif, for example, the confusion leads her to pay something she does not owe, or to pay a debt with interest running at a low rate when the money could have been used to pay a debt with interest running at a higher rate," id., but here Plaintiff has not alleged that she paid money she did not owe because of an alleged misrepresentation. To the contrary, the complaint suggests that she has not made any payments on the debt. See 1 24. And while it is possible for a debtor to be injured by an inaccurate credit report that misrepresents her debt as being higher than it actually isor as being undisputed when it is actually disputed, see Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 889 F.3d 337, 34448 (7th Cir. 2018)this court is not aware of any case holding that a debtor is "injured" for Article III purposes when her debt is reported as being lower than it actually is. The complaint here indicates that if CUR's report to TransUnion report misreported Plaintiff's debt, it did so by under-reporting the amount of debt, rather than over-reporting it. For all these reasons, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, by 3/10/2021, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff should support her arguments with citations to cases dealing with standing under the FDCPA from the United States Supreme Court or the Seventh Circuit. Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 2/10/2021. Mailed notice(jh, ) (Entered: 02/10/2021)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:21-cv-00692_de4 AdministrativeID "4" @default.
- ilnd;;1:21-cv-00692_de4 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:21-cv-00692_de0 @default.