WENTZELL v. SELIP & STYLIANOU, LLP
2:21-cv-20187
D.N.J.May 16, 2025Background
- Plaintiff incurred a personal debt to Discover Bank that was later sent to Selip, a debt collector, for post-judgment collection.
- Selip sent Plaintiff a collection letter in January 2021, detailing the balance and interest rate on the debt.
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action in New Jersey state court, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on representations in Selip’s letter.
- Selip removed the case to federal court under federal question and supplemental jurisdiction; Plaintiff amended her complaint to clarify FDCPA claims.
- The federal district court sua sponte raised the issue of whether Plaintiff had Article III standing and requested supplemental briefing.
- The court ultimately found Plaintiff alleged only statutory violations without any concrete, particularized injury and remanded the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing: Whether statutory FDCPA violations without concrete harm confer standing | Letter was misleading/deceptive related to post-judgment interest; statutory violation sufficient | No concrete harm alleged (financial or emotional); mere statutory violation insufficient for Article III | No standing—allegations do not establish concrete injury; case remanded to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (mere statutory violation, without concrete injury, is not enough for Article III standing)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (reiterates requirement for concrete harm for standing; statutory cause of action does not alone grant standing)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (underscores need for a ‘case or controversy’ and standing for federal judicial power)