Wyatt v. Creditcare

This folder examines who is the proper party to bring a lawsuit. This folder examines the issues from the standpoint of consumer-damage suits and collection suits brought against the consumer.
Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Wyatt v. Creditcare

Post by David A. Szwak »

Wyatt v. Creditcare, Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2780684
N.D.Cal.,2005.
Oct 25, 2005

******
The Court is similarly unpersuaded by Defendants' argument that Congress has attempted to "sidestep" the Article III standing requirement by granting individuals and class members the right to sue under the FDCPA without proof of actual injury. [FN5] Indeed, Congress has expressly authorized FDCPA class action cases, despite the fact that the statute does not require a showing of actual damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. The FDCPA is based on the premise that "every individual, whether or not he owes [a] debt, has a right to be treated in a reasonable and civil manner." 123 Cong. Rec. 10241 (1977) (remarks of Rep. Frank Annuzio). Thus, in an effort to eliminate abusive debt collection practices, Congress opted to focus on the debt collector's misconduct, granting standing to the recipient or target of the violative conduct. Courts have repeatedly rejected challenges to standing under the FDCPA and upheld the right of a plaintiff to obtain relief for FDCPA violations, including illegal attempts at debt collection. See, e.g., Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 307 (2d Cir.2003); Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 593 (7th Cir.1998); Wright v. Finance Service of Norwalk, Inc., 22 F.3d 647, 650 (6th Cir.1994); Baker v. G.C. Servs. Corp., 677 F.2d 775, 777 (9th Cir.1982); Palmer v. Stassinos, 348 F.Supp.2d 1070, 1087 (N.D.Cal.2004).


FN5. Defendants quote Harley v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, 293 F.3d 901 (8th Cir.2002), to support their claim that the motion for class certification should be denied on constitutional grounds. In Harley, the court noted that "[a]lthough a statute may broaden the class of redressable injuries, the Supreme Court has never held that Congress may do away with the Article III requirement of 'concrete injury." ' 293 F.3d at 906 (internal citation omitted).
Post Reply

Return to “Standing: An Important Question”