Nicole Smith v. Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd, 990 F.3d 640

SZJ, a law firm representing LVNV Funding, filed conciliation-court collection complaints against Nicole Smith and JaRonda Washington alleging specific balances plus an $85 filing fee and "plus disbursements."
Smith and Washington, through counsel, contested LVNV’s standing, arguing SZJ lacked a valid, complete chain of assignment; SZJ produced only a redacted computer printout.
The Conciliation Court dismissed LVNV’s claims for lack of standing, finding the evidence did not show the particular debts were included in the assignment.
Plaintiffs then sued SZJ in federal court under the FDCPA: (1) §1692e — alleging the statements that debts were owed "plus disbursements" were false/deceptive; and (2) §1692f — alleging SZJ pursued suits without sufficient evidence of assignment (violating the court’s Amended Standing Order).
The district court dismissed both claims under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding the disbursement requests were the equivalent of a prayer for relief and a good-faith legal position, and that failure to meet state evidentiary standards did not transform the conduct into an FDCPA §1692f violation.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying precedents distinguishing permissible good-faith litigation positions from actionable FDCPA misrepresentations and limiting §1692f exposure for technical or evidentiary state-law violations absent allegations of collecting debts not owed or bad faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alleging "plus disbursements" in the Statements of Claim violated §1692e as a false, deceptive, or misleading representation	The statement was false because no recoverable disbursements existed and SZJ did not intend to seek them	The request was the equivalent of a prayer for relief — a statement to the court of a legal claim made in good faith	Affirmed dismissal: treated as a prayer for relief; plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing the request was false or made in bad faith (Hemmingsen/Haney framework)
Whether filing suit without admissible assignment evidence violated §1692f(1) (using unfair or unconscionable means)	SZJ’s failure to satisfy the Conciliation Court’s Amended Standing Order meant it attempted to collect amounts not permitted by law	Falling short of a state evidentiary standard does not, by itself, make litigation an unfair FDCPA practice; SZJ had a good-faith basis to sue	Affirmed dismissal: no plausible allegation that SZJ sought to collect debts not owed or acted in bad faith; technical evidentiary failure not an FDCPA §1692f violation

Hemmingsen v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., 674 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2012) (representations to courts can be actionable under §1692e, but good-faith legal positions are not)
Haney v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 895 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2018) (prayer for relief asserting unsettled legal claim not necessarily false under §1692e)
Demarais v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A., 869 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) (§1692f claim actionable where collector attempts to collect a debt not owed)
Klein v. Credico Inc., 922 F.3d 393 (8th Cir. 2019) (technical violations of state collection law do not automatically create §1692f liability)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: complaints must state plausible claims, not mere conclusory allegations)
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010) (attorneys who regularly collect debts are subject to the FDCPA)