Bryione Moore v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A.
693 F. App'x 205
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Bryione K. Moore sued Blibaum & Associates, P.A. (B&A) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging B&A attempted to collect an inflated debt amount based on an improper interest rate stemming from a state-court judgment.
- B&A moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing; the district court granted the motion.
- Moore claimed she suffered concrete harms including emotional distress, anger, and frustration from B&A’s allegedly misleading collection demand.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, treating B&A’s challenge as a facial attack and accepting Moore’s plausible factual allegations as true.
- The panel evaluated standing under the injury-in-fact requirement articulated in Spokeo and related Fourth Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore has Article III standing to bring an FDCPA claim | Moore alleged a concrete, particularized injury: B&A demanded an inflated debt amount causing emotional distress | B&A argued Moore lacked an injury in fact and thus no federal jurisdiction | The Fourth Circuit held Moore alleged a concrete and particularized injury (emotional distress from an inaccurate collection demand) and therefore has standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 855 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(1) facial challenges)
- Demetres v. East West Const., Inc., 776 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017) (accept factual allegations as true where facial jurisdictional challenge asserted)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized; bare procedural violations insufficient)
- Pender v. Bank of Am. Corp., 788 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2015) (intangible harms can be concrete for Article III purposes)
- Miljkovic v. Shafritz & Dinkin, P.A., 791 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2015) (erroneous statement of debt amount can be misleading under FDCPA)
- Kojetin v. C U Recovery, Inc., 212 F.3d 1318 (8th Cir. 2000) (FDCPA violations include misstatements of debt amount)