Brett Adams v. Skagit Bonded Collectors
20-35158
| 9th Cir. | Dec 2, 2020Background
- Brett Adams received debt-collection letters from Skagit Bonded Collectors that did not clearly identify the current creditor.
- Adams sued under the FDCPA, alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) (affirmative disclosure) and § 1692e (false or misleading representations), claiming the letters left him unsure who the creditor was.
- The district court entered judgment on the pleadings for Skagit; Adams appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit raised Article III standing sua sponte and ordered supplemental briefing.
- Applying Spokeo’s two-step test, the court treated the alleged FDCPA violation as largely procedural and found Adams pleaded only confusion, not concrete harm or a material risk of harm from reliance.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment on the pleadings and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction (no Article III standing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (injury in fact) | Adams: misleading creditor ID caused confusion and thus an injury under the FDCPA. | Skagit: no concrete, particularized injury; mere confusion without detrimental reliance is insufficient. | No standing: confusion alone not a concrete injury; plaintiff failed to plead actual harm or material risk of harm. |
| Informational-injury doctrine applicability | Adams: deprivation of required creditor-identifying information is an informational injury conferring standing. | Skagit: Spokeo requires concrete harm; FDCPA rights are not a pure right-to-information per se. | Rejected: FDCPA protections not equivalent to a standalone right to information; informational-injury doctrine does not apply here without concrete or material risk of harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (statutory violations require a concrete, particularized injury for Article III standing)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction and standing requirements)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (conjectural or hypothetical harms do not satisfy standing)
- Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 867 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) (Ninth Circuit application of Spokeo standing framework)
- Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2019) (two-step test for whether statutory violations protect concrete interests)
- Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing procedural vs. substantive statutory protections)
- Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010) (FDCPA protects against genuinely misleading statements that impede informed responses)
- Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing FDCPA’s goal of enabling informed participation in debt collection process)