Fellenz, Mikayla v. The Stark Collection Agency, Inc., 3:19-cv-00946

Plaintiff Mikayla Fellenz received a debt-collection letter from Stark Collection seeking payment for an alleged TDS account and alleging the creditor as “TDS‑Medford‑BO#0801.”
Fellenz alleged the creditor identification was false and misleading and left her confused about whom she owed, so she sued under the FDCPA.
Stark moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and, alternatively, for failure to state an FDCPA claim under the unsophisticated‑consumer standard.
The court took judicial notice of TDS Telecom’s website showing that the entity commonly uses the acronym “TDS.” The letter also included Fellenz’s TDS account numbers.
The court held Fellenz had standing (confusion is a concrete injury for FDCPA purposes) but granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the letter would not mislead a significant fraction of unsophisticated consumers.
Dismissal was without prejudice and Fellenz was given leave to amend within the court’s deadline (Dec. 18, 2020).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing (Article III)	Fellenz argued the letter’s false/misleading creditor ID caused confusion — a concrete injury.	Stark argued no concrete harm because Fellenz never attempted to verify the debt.	Court: Standing exists; confusion from a misleading letter is a concrete injury under FDCPA.
Failure to state an FDCPA claim (12(b)(6))	Fellenz argued “TDS‑Medford‑BO#0801” (novel acronym + extra labels) was misleading and failed to identify the creditor clearly.	Stark argued using the acronym and additional identifiers would not mislead an unsophisticated consumer and the letter contained recognizable TDS account numbers.	Court: Letter would not mislead a significant fraction of the population; claim dismissed without prejudice, leave to amend granted.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires an injury‑in‑fact)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (mere procedural violation insufficient; concrete harm required)
Casillas v. Madison Ave. Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (distinguishing incomplete notices from affirmatively misleading ones for standing)
Janetos v. Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 825 F.3d 317 (FDCPA requires more than including information in an unintelligible form)
Smith v. Simm Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 377 (defines the unsophisticated consumer standard)
Zemeckis v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., 679 F.3d 632 (dismissal appropriate when not even a significant fraction would be misled)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be facially plausible)
Gutierrez v. AT&T Broadband, LLC, 382 F.3d 725 (use of trade names/acronyms can reduce consumer confusion)
Steffek v. Client Services, Inc., 948 F.3d 761 (account numbers may help consumers identify debts)
Pettit v. Retrieval Masters Creditor Bureau, Inc., 211 F.3d 1057 (characterization of the unsophisticated consumer)