GREEN v. MRS BPO L.L.C.
1:21-cv-10068-JHR-SAK
D.N.J.Jun 29, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Darek Green, an Ohio consumer, had a medical-related debt placed with MRS BPO, LLC for collection in February 2021.
- MRS sent encrypted data files to HOV Services, Inc., a third‑party commercial mail vendor, asking HOV to print and mail a collection letter that identified MRS, the debt balance, and Plaintiff’s home address.
- MRS asserts the transmission/printing process was automated and encrypted, with no human at HOV viewing the data.
- Green sued MRS under the FDCPA, alleging violations of §1692c (improper third‑party disclosure) and §1692f (unfair practices) based on the disclosure to the mail vendor.
- The court ordered supplemental briefing on Article III standing; MRS filed a brief and Plaintiff did not respond.
- The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing, finding no concrete injury where alleged disclosure was limited to a mail vendor (no public dissemination).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff has Article III standing from MRS’s disclosure of debt information to a commercial mail vendor | Green: Disclosure of name, address, and debt amount to HOV is an FDCPA violation that causes concrete, particularized injury warranting relief | MRS: Transmission to a secured, automated mail vendor (via encrypted files) that does not publicly disseminate information causes no concrete injury; any harm is statutory only | Court: No Article III standing—sharing with a limited mail vendor is not "publicity" and does not produce a concrete, particularized injury; complaint dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Wayne Land & Min. Grp., LLC v. Delaware River Basin Comm'n, 959 F.3d 569 (3d Cir. 2020) (federal courts must assure Article III standing)
- Common Cause of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 558 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2009) (case‑or‑controversy and standing principles)
- Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008) (standing requirements)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (elements of Article III standing)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (courts’ obligation to ensure standing)
- Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of Readington, 555 F.3d 131 (3d Cir. 2009) (standing doctrine analysis)