In Osorio v. Transworld Systems Inc, a Pennsylvania federal trial court threw out an FDCPA suit despite the plaintiff’s claim she was living in a “state of bewilderment” after receiving a collection letter.
The debt collection letter confirmed that the plaintiff owed money to Garden State Healthcare Associations. This sparked a lawsuit with the plaintiff claiming that the letter did not clearly state if Garden State was the original or current creditor, allegedly causing confusion about who to pay.
But because the plaintiff failed to mention any real-world consequences for her confusion, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. And the trial court ruled that the letter only mentioned one creditor—Garden State. Because the creditor was clearly identified, the case was dismissed on the merits.
The plaintiff appealed to the Third Circuit. The appellate court not only agreed with the trial court — the Third Circuit went further and ruled the merits should never have been considered. With the plaintiff’s claim for confusion not having any actual damage, there was no Article III standing and there was no right for the case to stay in federal court.
Have questions about a confusing letter- we are here to help!
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris interdum eu malesuada aliquam sed.
SIGN UP HERE