Link: Heisler v. Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-1344 (E.D. Wisc., Sept. 27, 2018).
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the dunning letters sent by CHRI did not identify the original creditor in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692g.
The court provides a great analysis of the FDCPA for purposes of Article III standing analysis post-Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).
Heisler alleges that CHRI violated his rights under the FDCPA by failing to identify the creditor to whom the debt was owed and by using false, deceptive, and misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of the debt. (Compl. ¶ 46.) As in Pogorzelski, Heisler’s allegations that the debt collection letter sent by CHRI failed to identify the creditor of the debt in violation of his rights under the FDCPA sufficiently pleads a concrete injury-in-fact for purposes of standing. As to CHRI’s allegation that Heisler never opened the letter, this fact is irrelevant as Heisler seeks statutory damages, “a penalty that does not depend on proof that the recipient of the letter was misled.” See Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497, 499 (7th Cir. 1997). Thus, I find that Heisler has standing to sue in this case.
Unfortunately for Plaintiffs represented by Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, judge Nancy Joseph also denied class certification because there is a unique defense that Plaintiff’s cause of action should be barred by judicial estoppel based on actions taken during the course of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceedings.