# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 31 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

St ev en Dem arai s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Gur st el Ch arg o, P.A.; RAzOR Ca pi ta l, LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

DBA In te rn at io na l, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll ee(s )

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 8 , 20 17
Fil ed : Au gu st 29 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, BEAM, an d M URPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.St ev en Dem arai s al l e g e s Gur st el Ch arg o, P.A., vi ol at ed th e Fai r Deb t

C o l l e c t io n Prac ti ces Act (FDCP A) whi le co ll ect in g a co ns um er de bt own ed by

RAzOR Ca pi ta l, LL C. The di st ric t co ur t d is m is se d Dem arai s’s co m pl ai nt . Havi ng juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t re ve rs es an d re m an ds

.

I.

Thi s co ur t co ns id ers th e fact s al le ge d by Dem arai s. He in c u r r e d de bt to

Ci ti b a n k

, N

. A

. No la te r th an 20 10

, Ci ti ba nk ch arg ed of f th e de bt

. Fo ll owi ng th e
ch arg e o ff, n o o ne sen t h im st at em en ts sh owi ng th e acc um ul at io n o f in te res t.

In Ju ne 20 14

, RAzOR— rep res en te d by la w fi r m Gur st el Ch arg o— su ed

Dem arai s in a Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t. RAzOR, cl ai m in g to be th e su cces so r in in te res t

to Ci ti ba nk

, sa id Dem arai s owe d it $2 0,5 91 .11 pl us $5 ,03 0.2 1 in in te res t. Acco rd in g

to Dem arai s, RAz OR so ug ht po st -ch arg e-o ff i nt eres t t ha t i t h ad no rig ht to co ll ect

.

Dem arai s di d no t ti m el y an swe r RAzOR’s st at e-co ur t co m pl a i n t

. Gur st el

Ch arg o di d no t m ov e fo r de fau lt jud gm en t. It in st ead al lo wed th e co ur t to se t th e cas e

fo r an Octo be r 5

, 2 0 1 5

, tri al

. W he n al le ge d de bt or s do no t fil e an swe rs , Gur st el

C h a r g o o fte n al lo ws th e cas es to be se t fo r tri al rat he r th an m ov in g fo r de fau l t jud gm en ts

. On th e tri al da te

, Gur st el Ch arg o ap pe a r s wit ho ut an y cl ie nt

rep res en ta ti ve s, wit ne ss es , or ot he r ev id en ce. Gur st el Ch arg o d o es th is

, Dem arai s

sa y s, to av oi d a Mi nn es ot a st at ut e ab ou t de fau lt jud gm en ts on co ns um er de bt s, Mi nn

. St at

. § 54 8.1 01

. Rat he r th an se ek in g de fau lt jud gm en ts

, Gur st el Ch arg o se ek s jud gm en ts ba se d on no n- ap pe aran ce at tri al

. If a co ns um er ap pe ars fo r tri al

, Gur st el

Ch arg o e it he r req ue st s a c on ti nu an ce o r di sm is se s t he su it

.

On Octo be r 5, Gur st el C h a r g o ap pe ared fo r Dem arai s’s sc he du le d tri al an d

ab ou t 17 ot he r co ns um er-d eb t tri al s. Gur st el Ch arg o ha d no cl ie nt rep res en ta ti ve , wit ne ss es , or ot he r ev id en ce. Dem arai s cl ai m s Gur st el Ch arg o as su m ed he wou ld no t

-2

-ap pe ar fo r tri al

, an d it s ap pe aran ce fo r tri al was an at te m pt to co ll ect th e po st -ch arg eof f in te res t. Bu t D e mar a i s d id ap pe ar, wit h an at to rn ey , p rep ared fo r tri al

. Gur st el

Ch arg o a sk ed for a co nt in ua nc e. The c ou rt r es et th e tr ia l fo r Ja nu ary 4, 2 01 6.

Dem arai s th en se rv ed di sc ov ery req ue st s on RAzOR. RAzOR di d no t tim el y

res po nd

. Dem arai s’s at to rn ey as ke d Gur st el Ch arg o ab ou t th e res po ns es

. It as ke d fo r

an ex te ns io n, an d Dem arai s’s at to rn ey ag reed

. Gur st el Ch arg o ne ve r res po nd ed to th e
di sc ov ery req ue st s.

On Ja nu ary 4, Dem arai s ap pe ared wit h hi s at to rn ey , pr ep ared fo r tri al

. Gur st el

Ch arg o ap pe ared

, bu t was no t pr ep ared —ag ai n, no cl ie nt rep re s e n t at iv es , no
wit ne ss es , a nd no ev id en ce. Gur st el Ch arg o di sm is se d RAzOR’s cas e ag ai ns t

D e m arai s wit h pr ejud ic e. Gur st el Ch arg o al so ap pe ared fo r pl ai nt iff s in two ot he r

tri al s th at da y

. In on e, it so ug ht a jud gm en t a g a i n s t t h e co ns um er-d efen da nt ba se d

up on no n- ap pe aran ce at tri al

.

Dem arai s pro vi de s case nu m be rs fo r si x ot he r cas es whe re he al le ge s Gurs te l

Ch arg o ob ta in ed or is ob ta in in g jud g m en ts de sp it e ap pe ari ng wit ho ut th e ab il it y to

in tro du ce ev id en ce. He al so pr ov id es cas e nu m be rs fo r se ve n cas es whe re he al le ge s

G u r st el Ch arg o ap pe ared wit ho ut su pp or ti ng do cu m en ta ti on an d, whe n th e co ur t

as ke d fo r it , req ue st ed a co nt in ua nc e an d t he n i gn or ed th e cas e.

On Ja nu ary 22

, 20 16 —ei gh te en da y s aft er di sm is sa l— Gur st el Ch arg o se rv ed

Dem arai s wit h in te rro ga to rie s an d do cu m en t-a nd -ad m is si on req ue st s be ari ng th e

cap ti on an d nu m

be r of th e di sm is se d cas e. The le tt er sa id it was a co m m un ic at io n

“ fro m a de bt co ll ect or an d is an at te m pt to co ll ect a de bt .” It sa id he was req ui red to

pr ov id e res po ns es wit hi n 30 da y s. Thi s was fal se , Dem arai s sa y s, be cau se th e cl ai m

ha d b een di sm is se d.

-3

-On Feb ru ary 5, 20 16

, Dem arai s su ed Gur st el Ch arg o an d RAzOR in fed eral

di st ric t co ur t, cl ai m in g th ey vi ol at ed th e FDCPA. (T h i s c o u r t r efer s to th e pa rti es

co ll ect iv el y as “ Gur st el Ch arg o.” ) He al le ge d th ey vi ol at ed 15 U.S.C. §§ 16 92 e an d

16 92 f by fal se ly rep res en ti ng th e am ou nt of d eb t, fa ls el y th reat en in g t o tak e act io n,

us in g un fai r m ean s to at te mp t t o c o l l ect de bt

, an d at te m pt in g to co ll ect de bt s no t

owe d. Gur st el Ch arg o m ov ed to di sm is s. The di st ric t co ur t d i s miss ed , c on cl ud in g

an y vi ol at io n at th e Octo be r 5 he ari ng was ba rred by th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns , Gur st el

Ch arg o’s s ta te m en ts in co ur t wer e “ pe rm is si bl e li ti ga ti on tac ti cs an d n ot act io na bl e

fal se as se rti on s,” an d th e J a nu ary 22 le tt er was no t li ke ly to de cei ve an y on e.

Dem arai s ap pe al s.

II.

Gur st e l Ch arg o arg ue s, fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

, th at Dem arai s la ck s

st an di ng be cau se he ha s no t al le ge d he su ffer ed a co nc ret e in jury in fact

. To ha ve

st an di ng , a “pla in ti ff m

us t ha ve

. . . su ffer ed an in jury in fact .” Sp ok eo , In c. v.

Ro bi ns , 1 36 S. Ct . 1 54 0, 15 47 (2 01 6)

. “ To es ta bl is h in jury in fa ct , a pl ai nt iff m

us t

sh ow th at he or sh e su ffer ed an in va si on of a le ga ll y pr ot ect ed in te res t th at is co nc ret e

an d pa rti cu la riz ed an d a c t u a l o r im m in en t, no t co njec tu ral or hypo th et ic al .” Id

. at

15 48 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ A ‘con cret e’ in jury m us t be ‘ de fa ct o ’; th at

is

, it m us t act ua ll y ex is t.” Id

. Bo th ta ng ib le an d in ta ng ib le in juri es can be co nc ret e.

Id

. at 1 54 9. At th e m ot io n t o d is m is s s ta ge , “ th e st an di ng in qu iry m us t . . . be d on e

in li gh t of th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s of th e pl ead in gs .” Ci ty of Cl ar ks on V al le y v.

Mi net a , 49 5 F.3 d 56 7, 57 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ), ci ti ng Luja n v. Defs

. of Wi ld li fe

, 50 4 U.S.

55 5, 5 61 (19 92 ).

D e marais sa y s Gur st el Ch arg o’s act io ns cau se d co nc ret e in juri es : (A) it s

Ja nu ary 2 2 le tt er— an at te m pt to co ll ect a de bt no t owe d in vi ol at io n o f § 1 69 2f (1 );

an d (B) it s Octo be r 5 ap pe aran ce an d co nt in ua nc e req ue st —an at te m

pt to co ll ect de bt

-4

-no t owe d in vi ol at io n of §§ 16 92 f(1 ) an d 16 92 e(2 ), an d an im pr op er th reat to ta ke an

act io n t ha t i t co ul d n ot an d d id no t i nt en d t o t ak e in vi ol at io n o f § 1 69 2e (5 ).

A.

Dem arai s do es no t al le ge an y ta ng ib le ha rm s fro m th e Ja nu ary 22 l e t t e r

. H e

al le ge s on ly th at Gur st el Ch arg o se nt hi m a le tt er st at in g it was “ an at te m pt to co ll ect

a de bt ” an d se rv in g hi m wit h in te rro ga to rie s, requ es ts fo r pr od uc ti on of do cu m en ts

,

an d req ue st s fo r ad m is si on s. The di sc ov ery req ue st s ha d th e cap ti on an d nu m be r of

th e di sm is se d st at e cas e an d sa id he was “req ui red ” to res po nd wit hi n 30 da y s.

Acco rd in g to Dem arai s, th is co nd uc t vi ol at ed § 1 69 2f (1 ) be cau se it was an at te m pt

to co ll ect a de bt th at was ex ti ng ui sh ed aft er Gur st el Ch arg o di sm is se d it s st at e-co ur t

co m pl ai nt wit h pr ejud ic e. Se e Dyk es v. Suk up Mfg

. Co

. , 78 1 N.W.2 d 57 8, 58 3
(Mi nn

. 20 10 ) (“ Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e jud gm en t o f di sm is sa l with pr ejud ic e an d on th e

m eri ts was an a d

ju d i cat io n th at ex ti ng ui sh ed an d di sc ha rg ed th e rig ht of th e Dy ke s

to br in g cl ai ms a g a i ns t Su pe rio r in a su bs eq ue nt la wsu it

. . . .”). Se e al so Dae wo o

El ecs

. Co rp

. of

Am

. v. W. Aut

o Sup pl y Co

. , 97 5 F.2 d 47 4, 47 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (“ The

di sm is sa l ex ti ng ui sh ed Daewo o’s un d e r l yi ng cl ai m .”). A de bt co ll ect or vi ol at es § 16 92 f(1 ) whe n it se nd s a l et te r at te m pt in g t o c ol le ct m on ey no t pe rm it te d by l aw. Duffy v . Land be rg , 21 5 F .3d 87 1, 8 75 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.

“ [A] pl ai nt iff [d oe s no t] au to m at ic al ly sa ti sf [y ] th e in jury-in -fac t req ui rem en t

whe ne ve r a st at u t e g ran ts a pe rs on a st at ut or y rig ht an d pu rp or ts to au th or iz e th at

pe rs on to su e to vi nd ic at e th at rig ht .” Sp ok eo , 13 6 S . Ct. at 15 49

. The vi ol at io n of

th e st at ut e m

us t cau se a co nc ret e in

jury. Tha t co nc ret e in

jury can be “ th e ris k of real

ha rm .” Id

. W he re “ th e vi ol at io n of a pr oc ed ur al rig ht gr an te d by st at ut e” crea te s th e

ris k of real ha rm , a pl ai n t iff “ ne ed no t al le ge an y ad di ti on al ha rm be y on d th e on e

Co ng res s h as id en ti fie d.” Id

.

-5

-W it h § 169 2f (1 ), Co ng res s id en ti fie d a ha rm —b ei ng su bjec te d to att em pt s to

co ll ect de bt s no t owe d. Thi s “ al le ge d in ta ng ib le ha r m h a s a cl os e rel at io ns hi p to a

ha rm th at ha s tra di ti on al ly be en reg ard ed as pr ov id in g a ba si s fo r a la wsu it in Eng li sh

or Am eri can co ur ts .” Id

. It is si m il ar to th e ha rm su ffer ed by vi ct im s of th e co m m on

la w to rts of m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on , wr on gf ul us e of ci vi l pr oc eed in gs , a nd ab us e of

pr oc es s. S e e
, e

. g

. , B er te ro v. Nat ’l Gen. Co rp

. , 52 9 P.2 d 60 8, 61 4 (Cal

. 19 74 ) (in

ba nk ) (“ The in di vi du al is ha rm ed be cau se he is co m pe ll ed to d e f

en d ag ai ns t a

fa b r i c a te d cl ai m whi ch no t on ly su bjec ts hi m to th e pa no pl y of ps y ch ol og ic al

pr es su res m os t ci vi l de fen da nt s su ffer

, bu t al so to th e ad di ti on al st res s of at te m pt in g

to res is t a su it co m

m en ced ou t of sp it e or il l wil l, of te n m ag ni f

i e d b y sl an de ro us

al le ga ti on s in th e pl ead in gs .”); Ca rt er v. Ost er , 11 2 S.W

. 99 5, 99 9 (Mo

. App

. 19 08 )
(“ Bu t th ere are to rts of whi ch m en ta l di st res s is th e pr ox im at e an d na tu ral res ul t, an d

fo r whi ch da m ag es m ay be as se ss ed

. Su ch are m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on s

. . . .”); Ba gl in i

v

. Laul et ta

, 76 8 A.2d 82 5, 83 9 (N.J. Su pe r. Ct

. App

. Div

. 20 01 ) (“ Co ur ts ha v e

req ui red li tt le or no p r o o f w it h reg ard to in ta ng ib le da m ag es fo r m al ic io us us e of

pr oc es s, ap pa ren tl y in th e be li ef th at a ‘nor m al pe rs on ’ su b je c t e d to wro ng fu l

li ti ga ti on wou ld ha ve su ffer ed at le as t so m e da m ag es .”). Se e al so Res ta tement
(Sec on d) of To rts § § 6 7 4
, 6 81 (J un e 20 17 up da te ); Dan B. Dob bs et al

., The La w

of To rts § 59 3 (2 d ed

. Ju ne 20 17 up da te ) (“ Acco rd in g to m os t co un ts

, a m ajor it y of

Am eri can co ur ts al lo w th e pl ai nt iff to pu r s u e t he wro ng fu l ci vi l li ti ga ti on cl ai m
wit ho ut sh owi ng an y sp eci al ki nd of in jury.”). The ha rm of be in g su b je c t e d to

ba se le ss le ga l cl ai m s, crea ti ng th e ris k of m en ta l di st res s, pr ov id es th e ba si s fo r bo th
§ 1 69 2f (1 ) cl ai m s an d t he co m

m on -la w un

jus ti fia bl e-l it ig at io n t or ts

.

Co ng res s reco gn iz ed th at ab us iv e de bt co ll ect io n pr act ic es co nt rib ut e to ha rm s

th at can flo w f

r o m men t a l di st res s, li ke “ m ari ta l in st ab il it y ” an d “ th e lo ss of job s.”
§ 1 69 2( a) . “ [B]ecau se Co ng res s i s wel l p os it io ne d t o i de nt ify int an gi bl e h arm s t ha t

m eet m in im

um Arti cl e I I I r e q ui rem en ts

, it s jud gm en t is

. . . in st ru ct iv e an d

im po rta nt .” Sp ok eo , 13 6 S. Ct

. at 15 49

. Co ng res s crea te d a st at ut or y rig ht to be free

fro m at te m

pt s to co ll ect de bt s no t owe d, he lp in g to gu ard ag ai ns t id e n ti fie d ha rm s.

-6

-Thi s is no t a si tu at io n whe re “ [i]t is di ffi cu lt to im ag in e ho w” t h e v i o l a t i on of a

st at ut or y rig ht al on e co ul d cau se co nc ret e h a r m. S e e Sp ok eo , 13 6 S. Ct

. at 15 50
(“ di ss em in at io n of an in co rrec t zi p co de ”); Br ai tb er g v

. C h a r t er Co m m c’ns
, In c. , 83 6 F .3d 92 5, 93 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ th e ret en ti on of i nf or m at io n l awfu ll y

ob ta in ed

, wit ho ut fu rth er di sc lo su re”)

. Dem arai s al le ge s G u r s t e l Ch arg o se rv ed hi m wit h

di sc ov ery req ue st s on an ex ti ng ui sh ed de bt

, fal se ly to ld hi m h e h a d t o r es po nd to

th em , an d to ld hi m it was at te m pt in g to co ll ect a d eb t. The se vi ol at io ns , di rect ed at

Dem arai s an d te nd in g to cau se reas on ab le pe op le m en ta l di st res s, crea te th e ris k of

real

, co nc ret e ha rm s. Se e Fr ie nd s of th e Ea rt

h, In c. v. Lai dl

aw Envt l. Ser vs

. (TOC),

In c. , 52 8 U.S. 16 7, 18 3 (2 00 0) (d im in is hm en t of aes th et ic va lu e of riv er is an in jury

in fact ); FEC v. Ak in s , 52 4 U.S. 11

, 21 (1 99 8) (d en ia l of in fo rm at io n th at wou ld he lp

p l a i n t i f f s ev al ua te can di da te s is a “ co nc ret e” in jury); Ha vens Rea lt

y Co rp

. v.

Co le m an , 45 5 U.S. 36 3, 37 4 (1 98 2) (rec ei pt of fal se ho us in g in fo rm at io n is an in jury

in fact ). The al le ge d vi ol at io ns of Dem arai s’s § 16 92 f(1 ) rig ht s were co nc ret e in juri es

in fact

.

Gur st el Ch arg o sa y s Dem arai s can pr ov e no co nc ret e in jury fro m th e Ja nu ary

22 le tt er be cau se Dem arai s’s co un se l st ip ul at ed th at th e di sc ov ery req ue st s were se nt

“ di rect ly” to co un se l. A s s u mi n g w it ho ut de ci di ng th at th is co ur t can co ns id er an

ou ts id e-t he -p le ad in gs st ip ul at io n at th e m ot io n- to -d is m is s st ag e, th e st ip ul at io n do es

no t de st ro y st an di ng

. Gur st el Ch arg o se rv ed th e di sc ov ery req ue st s on Dem arai s by

se nd in g th em to hi s co un se l. Se e Min n. R. Civ

. P. 5.0 2( a) (“ W he ne ve r un de r th es e

ru le s se rv ic e is req ui red or pe rm it te d to be mad e u p o n a pa rty rep res en te d by an

at to rn ey , th e se rv ic e sh al l be m ad e up on th e at to rn ey un le ss se rv ic e up on th e pa rty is

or de red by th e c o u r t.”)

. Rep res en ta ti on s m ad e to a co ns um er’s at to rn ey “ ro ut in el y

co m e to th e co ns um er’s a t te nt io n an d m ay affe ct hi s or he r de fen se of a co ll ect io n

cl ai m ”—e ve n if no t “ m ad e ‘dire ct ly’ to th e co ns um er de bt or .” Hem m in gs e n v.

Mes se rl i & Kr am e r

, P.A

. , 67 4 F.3 d 81 4, 81 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). In li gh t of th e
sim ila rit ie s be twee n Dem arai s’s al le ge d ha rm an d tra di ti on al ly recogniz ed ha rm s, an d

-7

-Co ng res s’s jud gm en t th at at te mp t s t o c o ll ect de bt s no t owe d cau se real in juri es , Dem arai s al le ge s t he Jan ua ry 22 let te r cau se d h im

a co nc ret e in

jury in fa ct

.

B.

Dem arai s al le ge s ta ng ib le ha rm fro m Gur st el Ch arg o’s Octo be r 5 ap pe aran ce

an d co nt in ua nc e req ue st

. Dem arai s al le ge s th at Gur st el Ch arg o th reat en ed to pr oc eed

t o t r i a l to win a jud gm en t fo r m on ey he do es no t owe

. In res po ns e to th e th r e a t

, Dem arai s ob ta in ed co un se l, se rv ed di sc ov ery req ue st s, pr ep ar e d fo r tri al

, an d

ap pe ared at tr i a l

. Gur st el Ch arg o cau se d th es e act io ns be cau se , ha d Dem arai s no t

act ed , it wou ld ha ve be en ab le to ob ta in jud gm en t fo r in te res t h e d id no t o we.

Dem arai s al le ge s a co nc ret e in jury in fact

. “ Fo r st an di ng pu rp os es , a lo ss of

ev en a sm al l am ou nt of m on ey is or di na ril y an ‘inju ry .’ ” Cz yz ews ki v. Je vi c Ho ld

in g

Co rp

. , 13 7 S. Ct

. 97 3, 98 3 (20 17 ). He al le ge s th at Gur st el Ch arg o’s acti on s cau se d

hi m to ob ta in an at to rn ey an d se rv e di sc ov ery req ue st s, whi ch or di na ril y co st m on ey

. Se e Tri -St at e Ho sp

. S u

p pl y Co rp

. v. Unit

ed St at es , 34 1 F.3 d 57 1, 57 6 (D.C. Ci r.

20 03 ) (“ th e fu nd s ne c e s s a r i l y ex pe nd ed to de fen d ag ai ns t th e wro ng fu l le ga l

pr oc eed in gs ” can be “ da m ag es fo r ‘los s of pr op ert y ’”). He al so al le ge s sp en di ng ti m e

de fen di ng ag ai ns t th e m eri tl es s su it

, it se lf an in jury. Se e Rem ij as v. Neim an Ma rc us Grp
., LLC

, 79 4 F.3 d 68 8, 69 2 (7 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (in di vi du al s al le gi ng frau du le nt cred it

card ch arg es su ffer ed Arti cl e III in jury—“ th e ag gr av at io n an d lo ss of v a l u e o f th e

ti m e ne ed ed to se t th in gs st rai gh t” ). Se e al so Wel ls v. Wi ll ow Lak e Es ta te s, In c. , 39 0

Fe d

. A p p x

. 95 6, 95 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (b ei ng “ fo rced to sp en d ti m e an d m on ey

co m pl y in g wit h [s el ect iv el y -en fo rced ] reg ul at io ns

. . . is an in jury in fact .”); Si

sl ey v. Sp ri nt Co m m c’ns Co
., L.P.

, 28 4 Fed

. App x. 46 3, 4 6 6 ( 9 t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ W e ha ve

reco gn iz ed

, at le as t in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces , th at lo st ti m e an d in co m e sp en t de al in g
wit h wro ng fu l co nd uc t ca n c on st it ut e a co gn iz ab le in jury in fa ct .”).

-8

-Dem arai s al so al le ge s Gur st el Ch arg o’s Octo be r 5 co nd uc t vi ol at ed hi s

§§ 16 92 f(1 ), 16 92 e(2 ), an d 16 92 e(5 ) rig ht s. As di sc us se d, Gur st el Ch arg o’s al le ge d

in va si on of Dem arai s’s § 16 92 f(1 ) rig ht s is a co nc ret e in jury in fact

. The sa m e is tru e

of th e al le ge d in va si on s of hi s § 16 92 e(2 ) an d (5 ) rig ht s. G u r s t e l C ha rg o’s al le ge d

fal se rep res en ta ti on in co ur t pl ead in gs of th e am ou nt of Dem arai s’s de bt an d it s fal se

th reat to pr oc eed to tri al crea te th e sa m e ris ks of m en ta l d i s t r e ss tra di ti on al ly

reco gn iz ed in un

jus ti fia bl e-l it ig at io n to rts an d th at Co ng res s jud ge d s u f f ic ie nt fo r

st an di ng to su e. Dem arai s ha s al le ge d co nc ret e in juri es in fact an d ha s st an di ng to su e

Gur st el Ch arg o.

III.

An act io n br ou gh t un de r t h e FDCPA m us t be br ou gh t “ wit hi n on e y ear fro m

th e da te on whi ch th e vi ol at io n oc cu rs .” 15 U.S.C. § 16 92 k (d)

. The di st ric t co ur t

co nc lu de d t hi s s ta tu te of l im it at io ns ba rred Dem arai s’s cl ai m th at Gur st el Ch arg o’s

Octo be r 5 ap pe aran ce an d co nt in ua ti on req ue st were an at te m pt to co ll ect an in te res t

no t owe d. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws “ de no vo

. . . whe th er a cl ai m is ba rred by the st at ut e

of li m it at io ns .” In re Pre- Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Tank Ant

it ru st Lit ig

. , 86 0 F.3 d 10 59

, 10 63
(8 th Cir . 20 17 ) (en ba nc ).

As a th res ho ld m at te r, Gur st el Ch arg o sa y s Dem arai s’s br ie f fai ls to ch al le ng e

th e di st ric t cou rt’s st at ut e-o f-l im it at io ns ho ld in g. To the co nt rary, Dem arai s’s bri ef

do es so , at l en gt h.

By th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of § 16 92 k( d)

, th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns be gi ns “ fro m th e
da te on whi ch th e vi ol at io n oc cu rs .” The ap pl ic ab il it y of § 16 92 k( d) tu rn s on whe n

t h e a l l e ge d “ vi ol at io n” oc cu rred

. Dem arai s al le ge s “ Gur st el Ch arg o’s Octo be r 5,

20 15 ap pe aran ce was an at te m pt on be ha lf of RAzOR to ob ta in a jud gm en t an d th us

co ll ect th e fu ll am ou nt d e mand ed in th e Co m pl ai nt ,” in cl ud in g “ po st ch arg e-o f[f]

-9

-in te res t” he di d no t owe

. Dem arai s al le ge s a vi ol at io n oc cu rred Octo be r 5, 20 15

. He

su ed fou r m on th s af

te r th e al le ge d v io la ti on oc cu rred

.

The di st ric t co ur t, rel y in g on Nu tt er v. Mes se rl i & Kr ame r, P.A.

, 50 0 F. Su pp

. 2d 12 19

, 12 23 (D. Mi nn

. 20 07 ), sa id

, “ co m m un ic at io ns du rin g th e co ur se of li ti ga ti on

th at m erel y res ta te or rel at e ba ck to as se rti on s m ad e in th e co m pl ai nt do no t res ta rt th e

li m it at io ns pe rio d.” It co nc lu de d th at si nc e Dem arai s sa id th e Octo be r 5 ap pe aran ce

was an at te mp t t o c o l le ct th e am ou nt de m an de d in th e co m pl ai nt

, it s al le ga ti on

“ rel at e[d ] ba ck to th e co m pl ai nt an d d [id ] no t s ta rt a ne w li m it at io ns pe rio d.”

The di st ric t co ur t erre d. If a de bt co ll ect or vi ol at es th e FDCPA, an in di vi du al

m ay su e to en fo rce FDCPA li ab il it y wit hi n on e y ear of th at vi ol at io n. It do es no t

m at te r th at th e de bt co ll ect or ’s vi ol at io n res ta te s earl ie r as se rti on s— if th e pl ai nt iff

su es wit hi n on e y ear of th e vi ol at io n, it is no t ba rred by § 16 92 k( d)

. Each al le ge d

vi ol at io n of t he FDCPA is “ ev al ua te [d ]

. . . in di vi du al ly to de te rm in e whe th er an y

po rti on of

” th e “ cl ai m i s n o t b arre d by th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns .” Llew el ly n v.

Al ls ta te Ho m e Loa ns

, In c. , 71 1 F.3 d 11 73

, 11 88 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 13 ). Acco rd So lo m on

v. HSB C Mo rt

g. Co rp

. , 3 95 Fed . Ap px . 49 4, 4 97 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ The FDCPA’s

co m pr eh en si ve sc he m e m ak es m an y de bt -co ll ect in g m an eu ve rs ac t i o n a bl e. Thu s,

se pa rat e co m

m un ic at io ns can crea te se pa rat e cau se s of act io n ari si ng fro m co ll ect io n

of a si ng le de bt .” (fo ot no te om it te d) ); id

. (“ Fo r st at ut e-o f- l i mi t a ti on s pu rp os es , di sc ret e vi ol at io ns of th e FDCPA sh ou ld be an al y zed on an in di vi du al ba s i s

. ”);

Pu r n e l l v. Ar ro w Fi n. Ser vs ., LLC

, 30 3 Fed

. App x. 29 7, 30 1- 02 & n.3 (6 th C i r

. 20 08 ) (rejec ti ng arg um en t th at “ al l th e FDCPA cl ai m s were ti m e ba rred be cau se th e
vi ol at io ns fi rs t oc cu rred ou ts id e th e li m it at io ns pe rio d.” ). As th e Ten th Ci rcu it po in ts

ou t, “ Any ot he r ru le wou ld im m un iz e de bt c o l l e c t o r s fro m la te r wro ng do in g.”

So lo m on , 39 5 F ed . App x. at 49 7 n .3.

The di st ric t co ur t refe rred to co m m un ic at io ns “ rel at [in g] ba ck ” to th e

co m pl ai nt

. Cf

. Fed. R. Civ

. P. 15 (c) (ap pl y in g “rel at io n ba ck ” pr in ci pl e to

-1 0-am en dm en ts to pl ead in gs ). The di st ric t co ur t s h o u l d h av e fo cu se d on Dem arai s’s

al le ga ti on —o n Octo be r 5, Gur st el Ch arg o a t t e mp t ed to co ll ect in te res t he di d no t

owe —an d de te rm in ed whe th er he pl au si bl y al le ge d th at Gur st el Ch arg o vi ol at ed th e

FDCPA on th at da te

. If he di d, hi s cl ai m is no t ba rred by t he st at ut e of li m it at io ns

.

IV.

The FDCPA ge ne ral ly pr oh ib it s de bt co ll ect or s fro m us in g “ a n y f a l se , de cep ti ve , or m is le ad in g rep res en ta ti on or m ean s in co n n e c t i on wit h th e co ll ect io n

of an y de bt .” § 16 92 e

. It sp eci fic al ly pr oh ib it s th e “ th reat to ta ke an y act io n

. . . th at

is no t in te nd ed to be ta ke n.” § 16 92 e(5 )

. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e act s

Dem a r ai s sa id vi ol at ed § 16 92 e—i nc lu di ng Gur st el Ch arg o’s req ue st fo r a

co nt in ua nc e—we re “ pe rm iss ibl e lit iga tio n ta ct ic s an d not ac tio na bl e fal se as se rti on s.”

Thi s cou rt rev ie ws the di st ric t cou rt’s di sm is sa l de no vo

. In re Pre- Fi ll ed Pro pa ne

Tank Ant it ru st Lit ig

. , 86 0 F .3d at 1 06 3.

The di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on St

. Jo hn v. CACH, LLC

, 82 2 F.3 d 38 8 (7 th Ci r.

20 16 ). The re, “ th e pl ai nt iff s cl ai m ed th at th e de bt co ll ect or s vi ol at ed § 16 92 e(5 ) of

th e Act by in it ia ti ng th e st at e co ur t pro ceed in gs wit h no in te nt io n of go in g t o t ria l.”

St

. Jo hn

, 82 2 F.3 d at 38 9. The Sev en th Ci rcu it ga ve two reas o n s fo r reject in g th e § 16 92 e(5 ) cl ai m

. Fi rs t, th e pl ai nt iff s “ fa i l e d t o s h ow th at th e de fen da nt s ev er

th reat en ed to go to tri al at al l” be cau se “ th e m ere fil in g of a ci vi l act io n do es no t

in cl ud e an im

pl ic it de cl arat io n th at th e pl ai nt iff in te nd s to ad va nc e th e act io n al l th e

way th ro ug h tri al .” Id

. at 3 9 0

- 9 1

. S eco nd

, th e pl ai nt iff s fai le d to “ su ffi ci en tl y

al le ge [] th at th e de fen da nt s di d no t in te nd to pr oc eed to tri al whe n th ey in it ia ll y fil ed

th ei r co ll ect io n c om

pl ai nt s i n s ta te co ur t.” Id

. at 39 0.

Dem arai s as ks th i s co ur t to reject St

. Jo hn

. He po in ts ou t th at th is co ur t ha s

su gg es te d th at act iv it y

li ke th at in St . Joh n vi ol at es § 16 92 e: “ a § 16 92 e co m pl ai nt

al le gi ng th at th e de fen da nt de bt co ll ect or la wy er ro ut in el y fil es co ll ect io n co m pl ai nt s

-1 1-co nt ai ni ng in te nt io na ll y fal se ass ert io ns of t he am ou nt owed , ser ve s t he co m pl ai nt s

on un rep res en te d co ns um ers , an d th en di sm is se s an y co m pl ai nt th at is no t de fau lt ed

wou ld rai se

. . . is su es of ab us iv e, de cep ti ve , or un fai r m ean s of de bt co ll ect io n

. . . .”

Hem m in gs en , 67 4 F.3 d at 81 8. Th i s co ur t, ho wev er, ne ed no t de ci de whe th er St

. Jo hn was co rrec tl y de ci de d. Eve n if it were, Dem arai s ha s pl au si bl y pl ed th at Gur st el

Ch arg o t hr eat en ed to tak e an act io n i t d id no t i nt en d t o t ak e.

F i r s t, Dem arai s pl au si bl y pl ed th at Gur st el Ch arg o th reat en ed to go to tri al

whe n it ap pe ared fo r a sc he d u l e d t r ia l, di sc ov ered Dem arai s was pr es en t wit h a

la wy er , a nd req ue st ed th e tri al be co nt in ue d. A co m m un ic at io n to a de bt or is a § 16 92 e(5 ) “ th reat ” if an “ un so ph is ti cat ed co ns um er wou ld li ke ly be l e d to be li ev e

th at ” th e de bt co ll ect or wou ld ta ke an act io n. Duffy

, 21 5 F.3 d at 87 5. Bu t whi le th e

“ un so ph is ti cat ed co ns um er” st an da rd ap pl ie s to co m m un i c a t i on s wit h de bt or s, a

“ co m pe te nt at to rn ey ” st an d a r d a pp li es “ [w]here an at to rn ey is in te rp os ed as an

in te rm ed ia ry be twee n a de bt co ll ect or an d a co ns um er.” Pow er s v. Cr ed it Mg m t.

Ser vs ., I n c. , 77 6 F.3 d 56 7, 57 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Thi s co ur t ha s no t pr ev io us ly

ad dr es se d whi ch st an da r d ap pl ie s whe n, li ke he re, a de bt co ll ect or co m m un ic at es

so m et hi ng to a co ur t, a de bt or , an d hi s at to rn ey si m ul ta ne ou sl y

. Thi s co ur t ne ed no t

an swe r th at qu es ti on be cau se Dem arai s pl ead s fact ua l co nt en t al lo win g a reas on ab le

in fere nc e th at Gur st el Ch arg o ’s c on du ct wou ld li ke ly le ad bo th an un so ph is ti cat ed

co ns um er an d a c o mp e t en t at to rn ey to be li ev e it wou ld pr oc eed to tri al

. In

Mi nn es ot a, a pa rty “ m ay no t de m an d a co nt in ua nc e fo r th e pu rp os e of de la y .” St at e

v. V an ce , 2 54 N.W .2d 35 3, 35 8 (Mi nn . 1 97 7)

. Se e al so Min n. Gen . R. Pra c. 12 2

. Dem arai s pl au si bl y al le ge s an un so ph is ti c a t ed co ns um er an d a co m pe te nt at to rn ey

wou ld li ke ly be le d to be li ev e th at a pa rty req ue st in g a co nt in ua nc e on th e da y of tri al

in te nd s t o p ro ve it s ca se on th e n ew tr ia l d at e.

Gur st el Ch arg o co n t e n d s t h at Dem arai s do es no t al le ge it “ m ad e affi rm at iv e

rep res en ta ti on s” th at it “ de fin it iv el y in te nd ed to try th e co ll ect io n cas e.” Bu t whe th er

a st at em en t is a t h reat tu rn s on wha t it li ke ly l ead s pe op le to be li ev e; it ne ed no t be

-1 2-an “ affi rm at iv e rep res en ta ti on .” Se e Duffy

, 21 5 F.3 d at 87 5. A n d c o n d i t io na l

st at em en ts can be th reat s. Se e id

. at 87 3- 74 (d eb t co ll ect or ’s le tt er st at in g th at

, “ in th e

ev en t th e pa rti es pr oc eed ed to li ti ga ti on , it wou ld se ek ‘

. . . at to rn ey ’s fees

, an d su ch

ot he r rem ed y

as t he co ur t m ay

gra nt ’” was a § 16 92 e(5 ) th reat )).

Seco nd

, Dem arai s pl au si bl y pl ed th at Gur st el Ch arg o di d no t in te nd to pr oc eed

t o tri al whe n req ue st in g th e co nt in ua nc e. He al le ge s th at whe n Gur st el C h a r g o i s

fo rced to pr ov e up a cas e, it r e q u e s t s a d di ti on al ti m e to pr ov id e pr oo f an d th en ig no res th e cas e. He refe ren ces se ve n c as e n um be rs su pp or ti ng th is all eg at io n. He

al so al le ge s th at Gur st el Ch arg o ap pe ared fo r t h e O c to be r 5 tri al da te wit h no

ev id en ce, ne ve r res po nd ed to hi s di sc ov ery req ue st s de sp it e as ki ng fo r an ex te ns io n,

an d ap pe ared fo r th e Ja nu ary 4 tri a l d at e wit h no ev id en ce. Dem arai s pl au si bl y
al le g e s t h a t Gur st el Ch arg o ha d no way of pr ov in g it s cas e ag ai ns t hi m an d ne ve r

in te nd ed to pro ve it s ca se at t ria l.

Co nt rary to Gur st el Ch arg o’s s u gg es ti on , fin di ng Dem arai s pl au si bl y pl ed a § 16 92 e(5 ) vi ol at io n do es no t m ean th at ev ery co nt in ua nc e req ue st vi ol a t e s th e

FDCPA. Gur st el Ch arg o’s po te nt ia l li ab il it y flo ws fro m an al le ge d fal se th reat to

pr oc eed to tri al

. If Gur st el Ch arg o di d no t fal se ly th reat en to pr oc eed to tri al

, it is no t

li ab le

. Als o co nt rary to Gur st el Ch arg o’s su gg es ti on , th e f a ct th at it us ed an

or di na ril y “ pe rm is si bl e li ti ga ti on ta ct ic ” do es no t in su la t e i t fro m FDCPA li ab il it y

.

“ The Act do es ap pl y to la wy ers en ga ge d in li ti ga ti on .” Hei nt z v. Je nk in s , 51 4 U.S.

29 1, 29 4 (1 99 5)

. Se e al so Hem m in gs en , 67 4 F.3 d at 81 9 (ex pl a i n i n g t h ere are

“ di ve rs e si tu at io ns in whi ch po te nt ia l FDCPA cl ai m s m ay ari se du rin g th e co ur se of

li ti ga ti on ”). True

, th is co ur t m us t in te rp ret th e st at ut e to “ im pl em en t ‘the st at ut e’s

ap pa ren t ob

jecti ve of pr es erv in g cred it or s’ ju di ci al rem ed ie s.’” I d

. a t 8 1 8, qu ot in g

Hei nt z , 51 4 U

. S

. at 29 6. In te rp ret in g th e FDCPA to pr oh ib it de bt co ll ect or s fro m

fal se ly th reat en in g to pr oc eed to tri al —co erci ng co ns um ers an d th ei r at to rn ey s to

pr ep are fo r an d ap pe ar at a tri a l t h a t t h e de bt co ll ect or di d no t in te nd to

-1 3-pu rs ue —p res erv es cred it or s’ ju di ci al rem ed ie s. Se e id

. (in di cat in g s i mi l ar co nd uc t

wou ld vi ol at e th e FDCPA) . Dem arai s p la us ib ly ple d a vi ol at io n o f § 1 69 2e

. 1

V.

Dem arai s al le ge s Gur st el Ch arg o’s Ja nu ary 22 le tt er vi ol at ed § 16 92 f(1 ). The

le tt er al le ge dl y sa id it was a co m m un ic at io n “ fro m a de bt co ll ect or an d is an at te m pt

to co ll ect a de bt ,” in cl ud ed di sc ov ery req ue st s, an d sa id Dem arai s was req ui red to

res po nd wit hi n 30 da y s. S e c ti on 16 92 f(1 ) sp eci fic al ly pr oh ib it s “ co ll ect io n of an y

am ou nt (in cl ud in g an y in te re s t, fee, ch arg e, or ex pe ns e in ci de nt al to th e pr in ci pa l

ob li ga ti on ) un le ss su ch am ou nt is ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed by th e ag reem en t crea ti ng th e
de bt or pe rm it te d by la w.” Lett ers at te m pt in g to co ll ect m on ey no t pe rm it te d by la w

are “ a vi ol at io n of th e pl ai n lan gu ag e of se ct io n 16 92 f(1 ).” Duffy

, 21 5 F.3d at 87 5.

Dem arai s cl ai m s th e le tt er was se nt aft er Gur st el Ch arg o di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e it s
cl ai m s ag ai ns t h im , and th us was “ an att em pt to co ll ect a de bt ” n ot owed

.

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Dem arai s’s cl ai m

. It st at ed th at th e le tt er was se nt

to hi s a t t o rn ey an d no t act io na bl e be cau se it was un li ke ly to de cei ve a co m pe te nt

at t o r n e y. It al so co nc lu de d, “ Reg ard le ss of th e st at ut or y la be l, Dem arai s’s

2

Gur st el Ch arg o arg ue s th at im po si ng li ab il it y vi ol at es it s Fi rs t Am en dm en t 1 rig ht s. Bec au se it di d no t m ak e th is arg um en t in th e di st ric t co ur t, th is co ur t de cl in es
to co ns id er i t. Se e Wi

se r v. W ay ne Fa rm s , 41 1 F .3d 92 3, 9 26 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

The fact th at th e le tt er was se nt to Dem arai s’s at to rn ey was no t in hi s 2

co m pl ai nt ; hi s at to r n e y ad m it te d th at fact at or al arg um en t in th e di st ric t co ur t.

“ St at em en ts of co un se l at or al arg um en t rai si ng ne w fact s no t al le ge d in th e pl ead in gs

co ns ti tu te ‘m at te rs ou ts id e th e pl ead in gs ’ an d, if co ns id ered by th e di st ri c t co ur t,

req ui re tre at m en t of a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n to di sm is s as on e fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.”

Ha m m v. Rho ne-Po ul

enc Ro re r Phar m ., In c. , 18 7 F.3 d 94 1, 94 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ).
Si nc e th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e at to rn ey ’s s t a t e m en ts at or al arg um en t, it
sh ou ld ha ve tre at e d G u r s t e l Ch arg o’s m ot io n to di sm is s as a m ot io n fo r su m m ary

-1 4-al le ga ti on s are in ad eq ua te be c a u s e t h e y do no t sh ow th at an y on e was li ke ly to be

m is le d, d ecei ve d, o r ot he rwis e d up ed by the di sc ov ery req ue st s.”

The di st ric t cou rt erred

. A pl ai nt iff ne ed no t all eg e so m eo ne was li ke ly to be

m is le d, de cei ve d, or ot he rwis e du pe d to pl ead a § 1 6 9 2 f(1 ) vi ol at io n. Thi s co ur t

be gi ns “ wit h a care fu l ex am in at io n o f t h e st at ut or y te xt .” Hen so n v. Sa nt an de r

Co ns um er USA In c. , 13 7 S. Ct

. 17 18

, 17 21 (2 01 7)

. The re is no “ m is le d, de cei ve d,

or du pe d” req ui rem en t in th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of § 16 92 f(1 ). Sect io n 16 92 f ge ne ral ly

pr oh ib it s de bt co ll ect or s fro m us in g “ un fai r or un co ns ci o n a b l e mea ns to co ll ect or

at te m pt to co ll ect an y de bt .” Sect io n 16 92 f(1 ) ex pl a i n s t h a t “ co ll ect io n of an y

am ou nt ” no t owe d vi ol at es § 16 92 f. Neit he r of th es e se ct io ns ha s th e te rm s “ m is le d,”

“ de cei ve d,” or “ du pe d.” Nor do es a vi ol at io n of the se se ct io ns ne ces sa ril y m is le ad

, de cei ve , or du pe a co ns um er. A de bt co ll ect or m ig ht “ co ll ect []

. . . an y am ou nt ” no t

“ ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed by th e ag reem en t crea ti ng th e de bt or pe rm it te d by la w,” whe n

it ga rn is he s a co ns um er’s wag es de sp it e ha vi ng no jud gm en t ag ai ns t he r. Se e, e.g

. , Sco tt v. Por tfo li o R eco ver y As so cs ., LLC , 1 39 F. Su pp . 3 d 95 6, 96 9- 70 (S.D. Io wa

20 15 ). Se e al

so Fo x v. Ci ti co rp Cr ed

it Ser vs ., In c. , 15 F.3 d 15 07

, 15 17 (9 th Ci r.

19 94 ) (“ [A] ju r y co ul d rat io na ll y fin d th e fil in g of an ap pl ic at io n fo r a writ of

ga rn is hm en t whe n th e Fo xe s were cu rren t in pa y m en ts de m an de d by Ci ti co rp ag en ts

to co ns ti tu te an un fai r or un co ns ci on ab le m ean s of co ll ect io n or at te m pt ed co ll ect io n

of a de bt un de r se ct io n 16 92 f.”). An erro ne ou s ga rn is hme n t do es no t m is le ad a

co ns um er; it de pr iv es hi m or h er o f pr op ert y

in vi ol at io n o f th e la w.

jud gm en t. Fed. R. Civ

. P. 12 (d) (“ If, on a m ot io n un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 )

. . . , m at te rs

ou ts id e th e pl ead in gs are pr es en te d to an d no t ex cl ud ed by th e co ur t, th e m ot io n m us t be tre at ed as on e fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t un de r Ru le 56 .”). The di st ric t co ur t’s erro r, ho wev er, was ha rm le ss be cau s e

— as di sc us se d be lo w—t he co m pe te nt at to rn ey
st an da rd is in ap pl ic ab le to Dem arai s’s § 16 92 f(1 ) cl ai m reg ard le ss of th e na tu re of th e

m ot io n.

-1 5-Oth er sp eci fic § 16 92 f pr ov is io ns are in co ns is te nt wit h a “ m is le d, de cei ve d, or

du pe d” req ui rem en t. Sect io n 16 92 f(6 )(A) pr oh ib it s “ [t]ak in g

. . . no nju di ci al act io n

to effe ct di sp os se ss io n . .

. of pr op ert y ” if th e de bt co ll ect or ha s “ no pr es en t ri gh t t o

po ss es si on of th e pr op ert y .” Vio la ti on s of th is pr oh ib it io n ge ne ral ly do no t m is le ad

, de cei ve , o r du pe co ns um ers —t he y ha rm co ns um ers by d ep riv in g th em of p ro pe rty.

Sect io n 16 92 f(7 ) pr oh ib it s “ [c]o mm un ic at in g wit h a co ns um er reg ard in g a de bt by

po st card .” Vio la ti on s of th is pr ov is io n ge ne ral ly d o no t m is le ad

, d e c e i v e , o r du pe

co ns um ers —t he y in va de co ns um ers ’ p r i v a cy by sh owi ng al le ge d de bt s to pe op le

vi ewin g th ei r m ai l. Se e Jo se ph v. J.J

. Ma c In ty re Co s. , 28 1 F. Su pp

. 2d 11 56

, 11 63
(N.D. Cal. 2 00 3)

.

Fu rth er, § 16 92 e sp eci fic al ly p ro hi bi ts de bt co ll ect or s fro m us in g an y “fa l s e,

de cep ti ve , o r mis le ad in g rep res en ta ti on or mea n s ” (em ph as is ad de d)

. It is un li ke ly

th at Co ng res s wou ld ex pr es sl y pr oh ib it “ de cep ti ve ” an d “ m is le ad in g” co nd uc t in on e

se ct io n o f a st at ut e, an d si le nt ly pr oh ib it it in an ot he r. W he re Co ng res s pl aces an

ex pr es s req ui rem en t in on e pa rt of a st at ut e bu t le av es it ou t of an ot he r, co ur ts sh ou ld

n o t “ad d [ ] th at te rm ” whe re it was “ co ns pi cu ou sl y ab se nt .” Se e Ha rd t v. Rel ia n c e

St an da rd Life In s. Co

. , 56 0 U.S. 24 2, 25 2 (2 01 0)

. By th e sa m e t o k e n, read in g § 16 92 f to req ui re “ de cep t i v e ” o r “ m is le ad in g” co nd uc t, wou ld m ak e § 16 92 f

su pe rfl uo us —an y co nd uc t vi ol at in g § 16 92 f wou ld ne ces sa ril y al so vi ol at e § 16 92 e’s

pr oh ib it io n on “ de cep ti ve ” or “ m is le a d i n g ” co nd uc t. Tha t read in g is st ro ng ly

di sf av or ed

, es pe ci al ly whe re, as he re, Co ng res s pa ss ed bo th § 16 92 e an d § 16 92 f in

th e sa m e st at ut e. Se e Ma rx v. Gen. Rev enue Co rp

. , 13 3 S. Ct

. 11 66

, 11 77 (2 01 3)
(“ [T]he can on ag ai ns t su rp lu sa ge is st ro ng es t whe n an in te rp ret at i o n wou ld ren de r

su pe rfl uo us an ot he r pa rt of th e sa m e st at ut or y s c h e m e.”). The di st ric t co ur t’s

de te rm in at io n th at Dem arai s m us t sh ow a li ke li ho od of be in g m is le d, de c e i v e d

, o r
du pe d “ [r]ega rd le ss of t he st at ut or y lab el ” co nt rad ic ts th e st at ut e.

Thi s cou rt’s case s in te rp ret in g § 169 2f do no t im

po se a “ m is le d, dece iv ed

, or
du pe d” req ui rem en t. In Pow er s v. Cr ed it Mgmt

. Se rv s., In c. , 77 6 F.3 d 56 7 (8 th Ci r.

-1 6-20 15 ), th e pl ai nt iff s al le ge d th at a de bt co ll ect or ’s d is co ve ry req ue st s “ co nf us e an d

mi s l ead th e un so ph is ti cat ed co ns um er as to hi s or he r rig ht s in an swe rin g sa i d

di sc ov ery”—a § 16 92 e cl ai m

. Pow er s , 77 6 F.3 d at 57 3- 75

. In th is co nt ex t, th is co ur t

s a i d th at “ a rep res en ta ti on by a de bt co ll ect or th at wou ld be un li ke ly to de cei ve a

co m pe te nt la wy er, ev en if he is no t a sp eci al is t in co ns um er deb t law, sh ou ld no t be

act io na bl e.” Id

. at 57 4, qu ot in g E v o r

y v. RJ M Acq ui si ti on s Fund

in g L.L.C.

, 50 5

F.3 d 76 9, 77 5 (7 th C i r

. 2 0 0 7 )

. Se e al so Evo ry , 50 5 F.3 d at 77 4- 75 (d is cu ss in g a
si tu at io n whe re “ co m

m un ic at io n to th e la wy er is al le ge d to be de cep ti ve ” (em ph as is

in or ig in a l))

. Si m il arl y , in Hemmin gs en v. Mes se rl i & Kr ame r, P.A.

, 67 4 F.3 d 81 4
(8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), th is co ur t sa id no on e “ was m is le d, de cei ve d, or ot he rwis e du pe d” in

th e co nt ex t of fin di ng a pl ai nt iff fai le d to “ pr ov e th at

. . . as s e r t i o n s were fal se or

m is le ad in g fo r pu rp os es of § 16 92 e.” Hem m in gs en , 67 4 F.3 d at 81 9. And in Ja ns on

v. Ka th ar yn B. Dav is

, LLC

, 80 6 F.3 d 43 5 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 5 ), th is co ur t he ld th at a pl ai nt iff di d n o t s ta te a ge ne ric § 16 92 f cl ai m whe n he al le ge d th at a de bt

co ll ect or -at to rn ey fil ed an affi da vi t wi th ou t p ers on al kn owl ed ge of t he fact s st at ed :

“ Abs en t an al le ga ti on th at he act ua ll y di d no t owe ren t, Ja ns on ha s no t pl a u s i b ly

al le ge d th at th e de fen da nt ’s pr act ic e m is le d th e st at e co ur t in an y m ean in gf ul way .”

Ja ns on , 80 6 F.3 d at 43 8. Bu t th at jus t m ean s an at to rn ey do es no t vi ol at e § 16 92 f by

pr ov id in g tru th fu l, n o n -m is le ad in g in fo rm at io n to a co ur t— no t th at de cep ti on is a

req ui rem en t o f § 1 69 2f

.

Gur st el Ch arg o as se rts t h a t th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s rece nt de ci si on in Mid la nd

Fun di ng
, L L C v

. J

oh ns on , 13 7 S. Ct

. 14 07 (2 01 7)

, su pp or ts th e di st ric t co ur t’s

“m is le d, de cei ve d, or du pe d” req ui rem en t fo r § 16 92 f(1 ) cl ai m s. In Mid la nd

Fun di ng , th e Co ur t co ns id ered whe th er a de bt co ll ect or vi ol at es § 16 92 e or § 16 92 f
by fil in g a pr oo f of cl ai m fo r a ti m e-b arre d de b t i n a Ch ap te r 13 ba nk ru pt cy

. Eva l ua ti ng th e § 16 92 e cl ai m , th e Co ur t sa id de te rm in in g “ whe th er a st at em en t is

m is le ad in g no rm al ly req ui res co ns id erat io n of th e le ga l so ph is ti cat io n of it s

au di en ce.” Mi dl

an d Fund

in g , 13 7 S. Ct

. at 14 13 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Sep arat el y ev al ua ti ng th e § 16 92 f cl ai m , t h e C ou rt no te d th at

, co m pa red to a de bt

-1 7-co ll ect or ’s ci vi l su it

, th e “ feat ur es of a Ch ap te r 13 ba nk ru pt cy p r o c e e d i n g m ak e it

co ns id erab ly m or e li ke ly th at an effo rt to co ll ect up on a st al e cl ai m in ba nk ru pt cy wil l

be m et wit h res is ta nc e, ob jecti on , a nd di sa ll owa nc e.” Id

. at 14 13 -1 4. It als o n ot ed

th at un ti m el in es s is an affi rma t i v e de fen se in ba nk ru pt cy , an d fin di ng § 16 92 f

ap pl ic ab le wou ld effe ct iv el y sh ift th e bu rd en of in ve st ig at in g st al en es s to th e de bt

co ll ect or

. Id

. at 14 14 -1 5. Neit he r of th e Co ur t’s § 16 92 f co ns id erat io ns ap pl y to

Gur st el Ch arg o’s al le ge d at te m pt to co ll ect an ext in gu is he d de bt in a ci vi l su it

. And

ne it he r in di cat es th at th e sp e c ifi c su bs ect io n at is su e he re— § 16 92 f(1 )—r eq ui res

pr oo f so m eo ne was l ik el y to be “ m is le d, d ecei ve d, o r du pe d.”

Gur st el Ch arg o arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t’s “m is le d, de cei ve d, or du pe d”

co nc lu si on was a fin di ng th at th e le tt er ’s m is rep res en ta ti on s were no t m at eri al an d

th eref or e no t act io na bl e. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s res erv ed th e qu es ti on whe th er an

FDCPA pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow m at eri al it y to pr ov e a § 16 92 e cl ai m

. Se e Sher iff v.

Gil li e , 13 6 S. Ct

. 15 94

, 16 02 n

. 6 (2 01 6)

. Thi s co ur t ha s no t di rect ly ad dr es se d

whe th er m a t e ria li ty is req ui red

, al th ou gh it on ce in di cat ed —i n di sc us si ng cl as s

cert ifi cat io n— th at m at eri al it y wou ld be an is su e in pr ov in g a § 16 92 f(1 ) cl ai m

. Se e

Pow er s , 77 6 F.3 d at 57 1. Ass um in g m at eri al it y is req ui red

, an at te m pt to c o l le ct a
de bt no t owe d is a m at eri al vi ol at io n of § 16 92 f(1 ). As th is co ur t he ld in Duf fy

, a de bt

co ll ect or ’s “ le tt ers se ek in g” d e b t s n o t owe d are “ an at te m pt to co ll ect in te res t no t

pe rm it te d by la w, an d th eref or e a vi ol at io n of th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of se ct io n 16 92 f(1 ).”
Duffy

, 21 5 F

. 3 d at 87 5. Duf fy di d no t ev al ua te whe th er an y on e was li ke ly to be

m is le d by t h e l e tt ers ’ ov ers ta te d in te res t am ou nt s; it co ns id ered whe th er th ey

at te m pt ed to co ll ect in te res t no t owe d. Id

. Acco rd Si

m on v. FI A Ca rd Ser vs ., N.A.

, 73 2 F.3 d 25 9, 26 9- 70 (3 d Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ [T]he ‘com pe te nt at to rn ey ’ st an da rd d[ oe s] no t

ap pl y to th e d eb to r’s § 1 69 2f

(1 ) cl ai m be cau se th e on ly i nq ui ry un de r § 1 69 2f

(1 ) is

whe th er th e am ou nt co ll ect ed was ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed by th e ag reem en t crea ti ng th e
de bt or pe rm it te d by la w. Thi s in qu iry d[ oe s] no t tu rn on th e read er’s so ph is ti cat io n.”
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ).

-1 8-Gur st el Ch arg o’s arg um en t fo r a “ m is le d, de cei ve d, or du pe d” req ui rem en t

na rro wly read s th e FDCPA as pr oh ib it in g on ly de bt -co ll ect io n act iv it ie s th at m is le ad

co ns um ers in to pa y in g de bt s no t owe d. Bu t th e FDCPA, by it s te rm s, gu ard s ag ai ns t

m an y ot he r ha rm s— th e m en ta l d is tre ss th at can cau se “ m ari ta l in st ab il it y ” an d “ th e

lo ss of job s,” as well as “ in v as io ns of in di vi du al pr iv acy.” § 16 92 (a )

. Se e al so

Hen so n v. Sa nt

an de r Co ns um er USA In c. , 13 7 S. Ct

. 17 18

, 17 20 (2 01 7)
(“ Dis ru pt iv e di nn ert im e cal ls

, do wnr ig ht de cei t, and m or e b es id es dre w Con gr es s’s

ey e to th e de bt co ll ec t i o n i n d u s try.”). The at te m pt ed co ll ect io n of de bt s no t owe d

ha rm s co ns u mer s n o t ju st by in du ci ng th e pa y m en t of fal se cl ai m s. It al so fo rces

co ns um ers to sp en d ti m e an d m on ey ad dr es si ng th e fal se cl ai m s— ev en if th ey kn ow

th ey do no t act ua ll y owe th e cl ai m ed de bt

. Bei ng su bjec te d to at te m pt s t o c o l l e ct

de bt s on e kn ows he or sh e d oe s n ot owe c an di sr up t m arri ag es , im pa ir per fo rm an ce

on th e job

, an d cau se pu bl ic em ba rras sm en t— th e ve ry ha rm s m ot iv at in g Co ng res s to

pa ss th e FDCPA. The di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng Dem arai s’s cl ai m th at Gur st el

Ch arg o’s J an ua ry

22 let te r an d d is co ve ry

req ue st s v io la te d § 16 92 f(1 ).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t o f th e di st ric t co ur t is rev ers ed

, an d th e cas e rem an de d fo r

pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur s i n t he jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 9-