No. 22-435

Renetrice R. Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2022-11-09
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: article-iii-standing circuit-split emotional-distress fair-debt-collection-practices-act intangible-injuries intangible-injury psychological-harm statutory-right
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri ClassAction
Latest Conference: 2023-02-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a plaintiff who suffers emotional or psychological distress and confusion from a debt collector's unlawful attempt to collect a debt has Article III standing to sue, when Congress granted the plaintiff a statutory right to do so under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED This case, as Judge Hamilton noted in his en banc dissent, “presents an important question on the extent of Congress’s . .. power to authorize private civil remedies for statutory violations that cause intangible but concrete injuries, including emotional distress, fear, and confusion.” Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 36 F.4th 728, 729 (2022) (Hamilton, J., dissenting). In this case, the district court certified a class and granted Petitioner summary judgment on her Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim, and a jury awarded the class statutory damages. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment on the basis that Petitioner suffered only confusion and emotional harm, which are not sufficiently concrete for Article III standing to pursue an FDCPA claim, despite Congress granting a right of action. Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 29 F.4th 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2022). In so holding, the decision below “deepen[ed] an important and growing circuit split” regarding Congress’s ability to elevate intangible injuries to a legally cognizable status. Id. at 940 (Hamilton, J., dissenting). Moreover, the decision is “out of step” with Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 8. Ct. 2190 (2021). Pierre, 36 F.4th at 736 (Hamilton, J., dissenting). The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff who suffers emotional or psychological distress and confusion from a debt collector’s unlawful attempt to collect a debt has Article III ii standing to sue, when Congress granted the plaintiff a statutory right to do so under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seqg., and the Act was enacted to preclude emotional and psychological distress caused by debt collectors.

Docket Entries

2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-23
2023-01-09
Brief of respondent Midland Credit Management, Inc. in opposition filed.
2022-12-09
2022-12-09
2022-11-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 9, 2023.
2022-11-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2022 to January 9, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-11-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 9, 2022)
2022-08-24
Application (22A167) granted by Justice Barrett extending the time to file until November 5, 2022.
2022-08-19
Application (22A167) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 6, 2022 to November 5, 2022, submitted to Justice Barrett.

Attorneys

F. Andrew Hessick and Amy J. Wildermuth
Richard A. SimpsonWiley Rein, LLP, Amicus
Richard A. SimpsonWiley Rein, LLP, Amicus
Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Michael T. BrodyJenner & Block LLP, Respondent
Michael T. BrodyJenner & Block LLP, Respondent
Public Citizen
Scott Lawrence NelsonPublic Citizen Litigation Group, Amicus
Scott Lawrence NelsonPublic Citizen Litigation Group, Amicus
Renetrice R. Pierre
Gregory Jacob DubinskyHolwell Shuster & Goldberg, LLP, Petitioner
Gregory Jacob DubinskyHolwell Shuster & Goldberg, LLP, Petitioner