Brendan Lyshe v. Yale Levy
854 F.3d 855
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2016 appellees (law firms collecting a debt) served discovery on Lyshe that: did not include an initial electronic copy (they offered one upon request) and included requests for admission requiring sworn notarized verification and warned matters would be deemed admitted absent compliance.
- Lyshe sued under the FDCPA, alleging these discovery statements violated the FDCPA as deceptive collection practices.
- Appellees moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing under Spokeo, concluding Lyshe alleged only procedural violations without concrete harm.
- On appeal Lyshe argued Spokeo did not eliminate standing for intangible harms created by Congress under the FDCPA and that a statutory right to accurate disclosures suffices.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed standing de novo and focused solely on whether Lyshe pleaded an injury-in-fact that was concrete and particularized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lyshe alleged an Article III injury-in-fact from appellees’ procedural discovery errors | Lyshe: FDCPA creates a concrete intangible injury where a debt collector provides false or misleading information in collection communications (including discovery); statutory right to correct disclosures alone suffices | Appellees: Alleged violations were state procedural rules (not FDCPA mandates) and Lyshe pleaded no concrete harm or risk of harm from those errors | No standing: bare procedural/state-law violations without alleged or imminent concrete harm are insufficient to establish injury-in-fact |
| Whether Spokeo permits standing based solely on a statutory procedural violation | Lyshe: Spokeo permits Congress to elevate intangible harms and thus FDCPA procedural violations can create standing | Appellees: Spokeo requires a concrete harm or material risk of harm; Congress cannot convert any procedural breach into Article III injury absent concrete effect | Court: Spokeo allows intangible injuries if concrete; but here the alleged procedural errors did not cause or risk the kind of harms FDCPA targets, so standing fails |
| Whether prior circuit precedent (pre-Spokeo) supports standing for state procedural violations in FDCPA suits | Lyshe: Relied on pre-Spokeo cases finding FDCPA liability for misleading discovery requests | Appellees: Post-Spokeo cases require a concrete injury or risk of harm; many circuits reject standing for mere procedural violations | Court: Distinguished precedent (e.g., McCollough involved intentional misrepresentations tied to FDCPA harms); held pre-Spokeo authority is not controlling given Spokeo clarification |
| Whether alleged inconvenience (e.g., contacting for electronic copy or visiting a notary) suffices as concrete harm | Lyshe: Argued deprivation of a statutory right to electronic copy and receipt of misleading verification language is harm | Appellees: Alleged inconvenience is speculative and not the abusive practice FDCPA targets | Court: Mere inconvenience or speculative, nonconcrete harms do not satisfy Article III; claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (procedural statutory violations must still produce or present a concrete harm to confer Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (elements of constitutional standing)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to establish standing)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2010) (FDCPA’s purpose is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices)
- McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (FDCPA violation where requests intentionally misrepresented facts about debt and omitted required warning—resulted in actionable abusive practice)
- Nicklaw v. Citimortgage, Inc., 839 F.3d 998 (11th Cir. 2016) (mere violation of state procedural rule without alleged harm does not establish Article III standing)
- Strubel v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2016) (procedural-right violations may confer standing only if Congress intended to protect a concrete interest and violation presents a material risk of harm)