Renetrice Pierre v. Midland Credit Management
29 F.4th 934
7th Cir.2022Background
- Midland Credit sent Renetrice Pierre a 2015 letter offering to settle a long‑unpaid (time‑barred) Target credit‑card debt, stating it would not sue or report the debt and that payment or nonpayment would not affect her credit score.
- Pierre did not pay; she disputed the collection by phone, retained counsel, and sued Midland under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), asserting the letter was deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable.
- The district court certified a class of Illinois recipients, entered summary judgment for Pierre on the merits (relying on Pantoja), and a jury awarded statutory damages of about $350,000.
- Midland appealed, raising Article III standing among other issues; the Seventh Circuit majority addressed standing first.
- The majority held Pierre lacked Article III standing for money damages because she suffered at most a risk of harm (and emotional reactions) but no concrete, realized injury as required by TransUnion v. Ramirez; it vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- Judge Hamilton dissented, arguing emotional distress, confusion, and other intangible harms tied to FDCPA violations are concrete injuries that Congress validly authorized and that the court should defer to Congress and common‑law analogues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for money damages based on receipt of allegedly deceptive debt‑collection letter | Pierre: letter created a real risk she might pay or restart the statute of limitations and caused concrete harms (confusion, fear, emotional distress) Congress meant FDCPA to redress | Midland: plaintiff suffered only a risk and subjective reactions (confusion, anxiety, lawyer consultation); risk/psychological states are not concrete injuries for damages claims | Majority: No Article III standing — risk or emotional distress alone (without materialized harm like payment or credit harm) is insufficient for money‑damages claims; case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether letter violated FDCPA by misrepresenting legal status of debt / being deceptive or unconscionable | Pierre: the statement that Midland would not sue or report, in context of a zombie‑debt settlement offer, was deceptive and unlawful under §§1692e, 1692f | Midland: collection offers for time‑barred debts are not per se unlawful and the letter’s disclaimers avoided a threat of litigation or reporting | District court: found for plaintiff on merits (summary judgment) — majority did not reach merits because of standing; merits disposition vacated when case dismissed |
| Class certification and damages recovery | Pierre: class of Illinois recipients of similar letters; statutory damages available under §1692k | Midland: challenged class certification and sought dismissal for lack of standing | District court certified class and jury awarded damages; Seventh Circuit vacated judgment and instructed dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (so class relief not resolved on merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (U.S. 2021) (risk of future dissemination insufficient for damages; standing requires a concrete, realized injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (U.S. 2016) (intangible harms can be concrete but Congress cannot transform abstract harms into Article III injuries without historical analogue)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury that is traceable and redressable)
- Pantoja v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 852 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2017) (addressed collection of time‑barred debts; district court relied on this for merits)
- Casillas v. Madison Ave. Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019) (statutory violation that causes no actual harm fails to confer standing)
- Ewing v. Med‑1 Solutions, LLC, 24 F.4th 1146 (7th Cir. 2022) (standing found where statutory reporting omissions caused credit score declines — analogy to defamation)
- Brunett v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 982 F.3d 1067 (7th Cir. 2020) (held confusion and emotional response to a dunning letter insufficient for Article III standing)