Consumer Class Actions

Consumer Class Actions

How to handle every aspect of a class action, even for small law offices, written by experienced consumer class action litigators.

Subscribe Now!

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins Relevant Court Decisions

Fair Credit Reporting Act  ||  Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act 
 ||  Other 

Fair Credit Reporting Act

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

  • Bautz v. ARS National Services, Inc., 2016 WL 7422301, No. 16-cv-768 (JFB) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016)
    Memorandum and order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing in a case alleging violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1962e. “The court finds that plaintiff has pled a concrete interest for the purpose of Article III standing . . . because a material violation of FDCPA Section 1692e infringes plaintiff’s substantive statutory right to be free from abusive debt practices.”
  • Bernal v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 16 C 1904, 2016 WL 4530321 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2016)
    Memorandum opinion and order granting Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a case alleging violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
  • Bock v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, Case No. 15-1056, 2016 WL 4011150 (3rd Cir. July 27, 2016)
    Opinion discussing the Supreme Court’s “strong language” in Spokeo and remanding a claim brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, to the district court to determine in the first instance whether Plaintiff has Article III standing.
  • Bowse v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 15 C 4037, 2016 WL 6476545 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2016)
    Memorandum opinion and order denying Defendant’s motion and granting Plaintiff’s in a case brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. “Because Bowse has alleged a violation of § 1692e(8) of the FDCPA . . . Bowse has Article III standing to bring this suit.”
  • Chapman v. Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, PC , Case No. 2:15-CV-120, 2016 WL 3247872 (N.D. Ind, June 13, 2016) approving class action settlement and holding, in Footnote 1, that "Spokeo largely reiterated long-standing principles of Article III standing, and did not clearly disrupt appellate precedent holding that plaintiffs...have standing to bring this type of claim under the FDCPA
    Order approving class action settlement 
  • Church v. Accretive Health, Case No. 15-15708, 2016 WL 3611543 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016)
    Opinion affirming the district court’s decision in which it granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, but finding that Plaintiff alleged a concrete injury sufficient to establish Article III standing in a FDCPA case.
  • Daubert v. NRA Group, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-00718, 2016 WL 4245560 (M.D. Penn. Aug. 11, 2016):
    Memorandum denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing in a case alleging a violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s injury of an “unlawful disclosure of legally protected information” constitutes an injury-in-fact sufficient to satisfy Article III standing and does not find Defendant’s attempts to distinguish Nickelodeon, 2016 WL 3513782 unpersuasive.
  • Dickens v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 8:16-cv-803-T-30TGW, 2016 WL 3917530 (M.D. Fla., July 20, 2016)
    Order in a FDCPA case denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.. The court finds that Defendant “grossly misreads” Spokeo and clarifies that an alleged failure to comply with a federal law may be enough to confer standing. The court also points to Church v. Accretive Health, Inc. ___ Fed.Appx.___, 2016 WL 3611543 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016) where the 11th Circuit found that standing existed in a case nearly identical to this one.
  • Dilallo v. Miller, No. 16 C 51, 2016 WL 4530319 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2016)
    Memorandum opinion denying Defendants’ motions to dismiss a claim alleging violations of the FFCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692i. The Court finds that the alleged violation of the FDCPA is a material one and has shown standing.
  • Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 15 C 4498 (E.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2016)
    Memorandum opinion and order in an action filed under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The court finds that Plaintiff has standing because “the presence of inaccurate information on one’s credit record poses a readily apparent risk of harm.”
  • Gomez v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 15 C 4499, 2016 WL 3387158 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2016)
    Memorandum opinion denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granting Plaintiff’s in a case brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8). The court notes that the Seventh Circuit “has clearly indicated that a plaintiff has the option under the FDCPA to seek only statutory damages,” and that Plaintiff therefore has Article III standing here.
  • Hall v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Case No. 8:16-cv-1279-T-30AEP, 2016 WL 4441868 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016)
    Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and Florida’s Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.72. The Court finds that Defendant “grossly misreads Spokeo,” and instead agrees with the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., ___ Fed.Appx.___, 2016 WL 3611543 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016).
  • Hayes v. Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., Case No. 14-1467, 2016 WL 5867818 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2016)
    Order and Opinion in a case brought under the FDCPA on a renewed motion for class certification. Defendant’s oppose Plaintiff’s motion arguing that Plaintiff suffered no actual damages and does not meet Article III’s standing requirements. The court disagrees and grants Plaintiff’s motion.
  • Hayes v. Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., Case No. 14-1467, 2016 WL 5867818 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2016)
    Order and opinion granting Plaintiff’s renewed motion for class certification in a case alleging violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion, arguing lack of Article III standing. The court holds that Plaintiff did present evidence of a concrete injury and that Plaintiff has satisfied the Spokeo requirements for standing.
  • Horowitz v. GC Services Limited Partnership, 2016 WL 7188238, Case No. 14cv2512-MMA RBB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016)
    Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code § 1788 et seq.; the TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.; and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code § 631 et seq. The court finds that “Plaintiff Hamby lacks both Article III and statutory standing to sue for a violation of the TCPA” and grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s TCPA claim.
  • In re Robinson v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, Case No. 15-30223, 2016 WL 4069395 (W.D. La. July 28, 2016)
    Opinion in a case brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, finding that Plaintiff has standing. The court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but is allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
  • Irvine v. I.C. System, Inc., No. 14-cv-01329-PAB, KMT, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99880, 2016 WL 4196812, --- F.Supp.3d --- (D.Colo. July 29, 2016)
    Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss and granting Plaintiff’s motion to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in a case arising out of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. The Court agrees that Plaintiff suffered a concrete injury sufficient to establish Article III standing.
  • Jackson v. Abendroth, No. 4:16-cv-00113-RGE-HCA, 2016 WL 4942074 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 12, 2016)
    Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a case alleging violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
  • Kaymark v. Urden Law Offices, P.C., 2016 WL 718740, Civil Action No. 13-419 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2016)
    Memorandum order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss in a case alleging violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2)(A), (5), (10), and 1692f(1), and of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. Defendant contends that Spokeo undermines Plaintiff’s Article III standing and supports Defendant’s argument that the remaining FDCPA claims lack materiality. The court finds that Defendant’s “alleged violation of Kaymark’s right to truthful information and freedom from efforts to collect unauthorized debt constitutes a concrete injury and satisfies Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement.”
  • Lane v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC., No. 15 C 10446, 2016 WL 3671467 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2016)
    Opinion denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on Spokeo grounds, finding that the injury alleged was sufficiently concrete to confer standing in a claim alleging violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.
  • Linehan v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. C15-1012-JCC, 2016 WL 4765839 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2016)
    Order denying Defendant Friedman’s motion as to standing and a motion as to vagueness and granting in other parts. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)(2). The Court finds that by alleging a violation of § 1692i, the Simmons Plaintiffs articulated a concrete harm.
  • Long v. Fenton & McGarvey Law Firm P.S.C., 2016 WL 7179367, No. 1:15-cv-01924-LJM-DML (S.D. Ind. Dec. 9, 2016)
    Order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case brought under the FDCPA. The court finds that Plaintiff has Article III standing because “the alleged injury is a defined and cognizable harm under the FDCPA, it is more than a bare procedural violation of the statute.”
  • Macy v. GC Services Limited Partnership, 3:15-cv-819-DJH, 2016 WL 5661525 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 29, 2016)
    Memorandum opinion and order denying Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a case alleging a violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. The court does not agree with the “expansive” reading of Spokeo supported by Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., No. 15-15708, 2016 WL 3611543 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016). Nonetheless, the court here finds that Plaintiffs complaint sufficiently alleges an injury-in-fact.
  • McCamis v. Servis One, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-1130-T-30AEP, 2016 WL 4063403 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2016)
    Opinion in a debt collection case brought under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.55 et seq., the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and 11 U.S.C. § 105(1). Defendant moved to dismiss the case arguing that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing because he did not plead an injury-in-fact. The court concluded that Plaintiff had standing and proceeded to grant in part, and deny in part the motion to dismiss. One count was dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff to pursue in the bankruptcy court.
  • McWilliams v. Advanced Recovery Systems, Inc., 3:15-cv-70-CWR-LRA, 2016 WL 6208633 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 20, 2016)
    In this order of preliminary approval of class action settlement, the court notes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action alleging violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., because Plaintiff alleges that she alleged an injury-in-fact fairly traceable to the challenged conduct that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision in line with the Spokeo case.
  • Mogg v. Jacobs, Case No. 15-cv-1142-JPG-DGW, 2016 WL 4395899 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2016):
    Memorandum and order denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in a case alleging violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and finding that Plaintiff’s intangible injury as a consequence of being a defendant in a collection action suffices to satisfy Article III standing requirements.
  • Munger v. Financial Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 16-11008, 2016 WL 4593832 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 2, 2016)
    Opinion and order granting Defendant’s motion to vacate entry of default judgment in a case alleging violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., and the Michigan Collection Practices Act, M.C.L.A. §§ 445.252(f)(i-ii) and 445.252(h). Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not adequately allege an injury-in-fact as required by Spokeo. The court focuses on other factors in ruling that there is good cause to set aside the judgment.
  • Nyberg v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, No. 3:15-cv-01175, 2016 WL 3176585, at *7 (D. Or. June 2, 2016)
    Order granting in part judgment on the pleadings in a claim brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a. Court finds that the plaintiff suffered a concrete, particularized injury.
  • Perry v. Columbia Recovery Group, LLC, C16-0191JLR, 2016 WL 6094821 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2016)
    Order granting motion to dismiss with leave to amend in a case brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. The court finds that Plaintiff only alleged procedural violations of sections 1962g(a) and (b) of the FDCPA and that such violations do not constitute a concrete injury. The court notes that such a failure to allege a concrete injury may reflect “a mere pleading defect” and therefore grants leave to amend.
  • Prindle v. Carrington Mortg. Services, LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-1349-J-34PDB, 2016 WL 4369424 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2016):
    Order finding that Plaintiff has Article III standing and granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion for summary final judgment. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has alleged an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing in a case alleging violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§1692-1692p, and that the “FDCPA unambiguously grants recipients of debt-collection communications (such as Prindle) a right to be free from abusive collection practices.”
  • Provo v. Rady Children’s Hospital, Case No. 15-cv-00081-JM(BGS), 2016 WL 4625556 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2016)
    Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing in a claim brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq.. The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to adequately plead an injury in fact. The Court grants Plaintiff’s leave to amend.
  • Quinn v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-2021, 2016 WL 4264967 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2016):
    Memorandum opinion and order in a case alleging violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and allows Plaintiffs to amend the complaint to include more specific allegations of pecuniary harm. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ alleged injury satisfies Article III.
  • Quinn v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 16 CV 2021, 2016 WL 4264967 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2016)
    Memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss a case alleging violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. The court finds that Defendant’s failure to provide Plaintiffs with information required under the FDCPA constitutes a sufficiently concrete harm to establish Article III standing.
  • Saenz v. Buckeye Check Cashing of Ill., 16 CV 6052, 2016 WL 5080747 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2016)
    Memorandum opinion and order denying in part and granting in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss a case brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. The court finds that Plaintiff alleged a concrete injury sufficient to establish Article III standing but cannot allege facts sufficient to support a claim that Defendant meets the statutory definition of a debt collector under the FDCPA.
  • Sayles v. Advanced Recovery Systems, Inc., Cause No. 3:14-cv-911-CWR-FKB, 2016 WL 4522822 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 26, 2016)
    Memorandum opinion and order finding that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) and entering judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. The Court finds that plaintiff’s alleged injury is both particularized and concrete.
  • Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-1392 CAB (NLS)
    - Order dismissing Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim brought under 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)(1) & (3) for lack of standing as to his complaint about a letter. The court did, however, find that Plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue his FDCPA claim, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)(1), regarding the complaint filed in state court. 2016 WL 3919633 (S.D. Cal., June 16, 2016).
    - Order dismissing class claim in an FDCPA suit after standing was established due to a lack of competent evidence offered to establish the proper amount of damages that the finder of fact may consider in the award of statutory damages. Because this necessary element of the class claim cannot be proved, the class claim is dismissed. 2016 WL 3854540 (S.D. Cal., July 15, 2016).
  • Zirogiannis v. Seterus Inc., 2016 WL 7410541, No. 15-cv-05884 (SJF)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2016)
    Opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion in a case brought under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 el seq. The court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations establish an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing.
  • SEE RELEVANT FDCPA BRIEFS HERE >>>

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Other

 

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins Briefs

Fair Credit Reporting Act  ||  Fair Debt Collection Practices Act  ||  Truth in Lending and Mortgage Related 
 Telephone Consumer Protection Act
  ||  Other 

Sample briefs addressing Spokeo in consumer-side cases from around the nation are available below. Relevant briefs may be submitted to NCLC’s Director of Litigation Stuart Rossman at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Please submit a Word version and a PDF of the document as filed with the court, including the date stamp. Note: NCLC has neither proofread nor edited submitted materials.

Model Language for Spokeo Briefs

Model language for Spokeo briefs, with statute specific arguments focusing on the nature of harm as it applies to various aspects of consumer law, are available below.

Fair Credit Reporting Act

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Truth in Lending and Mortgage Related

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Other

Subcategories

Litigation