Kansas District Court Finds Extra Efforts and Expenses Sufficient for Standing in FDCPA Suit

On October 16, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denieda defendant’s motion to dismiss an FDCPA case, holding that the plaintiff had standing to pursue her claims. The plaintiff alleged that, after disputing a debt, she had to spend “additional time, effort, and expense” to inform the defendant a second time that the debt was disputed; this was after the defendant had continued to report the debt to a credit bureau without noting the dispute, violating Sections 1692e(8) and 1692f of the FDCPA. In its motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had not alleged a concrete injury as required for Article III standing.

The court, referencing U.S. Supreme Court and relevant circuit precedents, found the plaintiff’s allegations of additional time, effort and expense constituted a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed.