Verdecias v. BSI Financial Services Inc, 2:20-cv-01776

Plaintiff Luis Verdecias sued Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services over actions relating to the servicing of his mortgage loan.
Alleged violations included the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Wisconsin statutes, breach of contract, and conversion.
The court previously denied Verdecias’ motion for partial summary judgment and granted (in part) BSI’s motion, dismissing federal claims for lack of standing.
Verdecias then filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, claiming the court erred in its standing analysis.
The main thrust of Verdecias' argument involved actual economic damages and emotional distress from BSI’s loan servicing and purportedly inadequate responses to information requests.
The court denied his Rule 59 motion and provided a deadline for Verdecias to establish jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FDCPA Standing	Suffered economic damages and distress	No concrete injury from actions	Plaintiff failed to show a concrete injury; no standing
RESPA Standing	Inadequate responses led to harm	Any harm is unrelated to responses	No connection between inadequate response and alleged harm; no standing
Out-of-pocket expenses (faxing/postage)	Expenses incurred create standing	Such expenses are not sufficient for standing	Out-of-pocket expenses for communication don't establish standing
Reconsideration of Prior Decision	Errors of law in standing determination	No manifest error; arguments already rejected	No manifest error; reconsideration denied

Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246 (7th Cir. 1987) (Rule 59(e) is for correcting manifest errors or presenting new evidence)
Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2000) (manifest error requires disregard or failure to recognize controlling precedent)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standing requires injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability)
Spuhler v. State Collection Serv., Inc., 983 F.3d 282 (7th Cir. 2020) (standing must be proven with specific facts at summary judgment)
Ewing v. MED-1 Solutions, LLC, 24 F.4th 1146 (7th Cir. 2022) (FDCPA standing requires actual harm such as decreased credit score)
Lavelle v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 932 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 2019) (failure to provide required disclosures established standing where it disadvantaged plaintiff)
Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 29 F.4th 934 (7th Cir. 2022) (retaining counsel not a cognizable FDCPA harm)
Brunett v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 982 F.3d 1067 (7th Cir. 2020) (retaining counsel does not establish standing in FDCPA cases)
Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 908 F.3d 1050 (7th Cir. 2018) (RESPA damages must result from actual injury, not from procedural violations)
Diedrich v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 839 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2016) (RESPA standing requires a concrete injury, not just a statutory violation)