-
FDCPA / Standing / Dissipation of Risk of Future Harm: Plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient injury in fact to establish standing to file suit where risk of future harm had dissipated before filing complaint; emotional distress alone is not a concrete injury to confer standing under the FDCPA – Toste v. Beach Club at Fontainebleau Park Condo. Ass’n, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-23771 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2021) (dismissing case with prejudice)
-
FDCPA / Standing / Emotional Distress: Emotional distress alone is not a concrete injury to confer standing under the FDCPA – Toste v. Beach Club at Fontainebleau Park Condo. Ass’n, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-23771 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2021) (dismissing case with prejudice)
-
TCPA / ATDS: Plaintiff’s allegations that defendant used an ATDS to contact customers failed under TCPA because the platform only contacted phone numbers specifically provided by consumers during registration process because the list was not populated randomly – Austria v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-05019 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021) (granting motion to dismiss TCPA claim with prejudice)
-
FDCPA / Standing / Concrete Injury in Fact: Plaintiff’s allegations of “sewer service,” failing to serve a debtor and filing a fraudulent affidavit attesting to service so that when debtor later fails to appear in court, a default judgment can be entered, were sufficient to establish a concrete injury from the risk of harm the FDCPA was designed to protect against – Fleming v. Provest Cal. LLC, No. 5:21-cv-04462 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021) (denying motion to remand)