tashatuvango / AdobeStockOn October 16, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss an FDCPA case, holding that the plaintiff had standing to pursue her claims. The plaintiff alleged that, after disputing a debt, she had to spend “additional time, effort, and expense” to inform the defendant a second time that the debt was disputed; this was after the defendant had continued to report the debt to a credit bureau without noting the dispute, violating Sections 1692e(8) and 1692f of the FDCPA. In its motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had not alleged a concrete injury as required for Article III standing.
The court, referencing U.S. Supreme Court and relevant circuit precedents, found the plaintiff’s allegations of additional time, effort and expense constituted a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed.
