Amber Ben-Davies v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A.
695 F. App'x 674
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Amber Ben-Davies sued Blibaum & Associates under the FDCPA, MCDCA, and MCPA, alleging collection of an incorrect debt amount based on an unauthorized interest calculation after a state-court judgment.
- Blibaum moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on the ground that Ben-Davies lacked Article III standing (no injury in fact); the district court granted the motion and dismissed the FDCPA claim for lack of standing and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and treated the Rule 12(b)(1) facial challenge with the same protections as a 12(b)(6) motion, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true.
- Ben-Davies alleged she suffered concrete, intangible harms from the alleged misstatement of the debt amount and demand: emotional distress, anger, and frustration, and that these harms were traceable to Blibaum’s conduct and redressable.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded the alleged misstatement of the debt amount and the resulting emotional harms constituted a concrete, particularized injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing as to the FDCPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for FDCPA claim (injury in fact) | Ben-Davies: misstatement of debt amount and demand caused concrete, intangible harms (emotional distress, anger, frustration) and thus an injury in fact | Blibaum: plaintiff has no concrete injury — mere statutory/procedural violation; reliance on other district decisions and plaintiff’s settlement offer/non-payment to show no injury | Held: Plaintiff established a concrete, particularized injury in fact (intangible emotional harms from incorrect debt demand); standing exists; case vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (Article III requires a concrete, particularized injury; bare procedural violations insufficient)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) (standing requires injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent)
- Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017) (de novo review of standing dismissal)
- Miljkovic v. Shafritz & Dinkin, P.A., 791 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2015) (erroneous statement of debt amount can be misleading under the FDCPA)