Perl v. Sontag & Hyman P.C. et al
| Joseph Perl |
| Sontag & Hyman P.C. and John Does 1-25 |
| 1:2021cv06814 |
| December 8, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Pamela K Chen |
| James R Cho |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Courts Order 1/28/22 Order to Show Cause on Defendants on 2/1/2022, filed by Joseph Perl. (Deutsch, Raphael) |
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a putative class against Defendants Sontag & Hyman P.C., and John Does 1-25, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sent him letters that caused him to be "concerned and confused," to spend "time, money, and effort in determining the proper course of action," and to suffer "emotional harm" and "informational injury." (See Dkt. 1, pars. 47, 54, 56, 57.)Before 2021, the Second Circuit explained that "an alleged violation of [the FDCPA] satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III." Cohen v. Rosicki, Rosicki & Assocs., P.C., 897 F.3d 75, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2018). In 2021, however, the Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, clarifying that, even where a defendant violates a statute such as the FDCPA, the plaintiff has not necessarily suffered an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing. 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021) ("[A]n important difference exists between (i) a plaintiff's statutory cause of action to sue a defendant over the defendant's violation of federal law, and (ii) a plaintiff's suffering concrete harm because of the defendant's violation of federal law."). Since TransUnion, courts in this Circuit have applied that principle to the types of facts alleged here and found that plaintiffs had not suffered injuries-in-fact and thus did not have standing to sue in federal court. See, e.g., Cavazzini v. MRS Assocs., No. 21-CV-5087 (ARR) (ST), 2021 WL 5770273, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2021) ("Multiple courts have found alleged confusion to be insufficient for standing in the FDCPA context." (collecting cases)); Kola v. Forster & Garbus LLP, No. 19-CV-10496 (CS), 2021 WL 4135153, at *1, 7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2021) (explaining that merely receiving a misleading or confusing letter under the FDCPA does not establish an injury-in-fact). Such cases may, however, be brought in state courts, which have jurisdiction to enforce the FDCPA and are not bound by the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III of the Constitution. See Cavazzini, 2021 WL 5770273, at *8; Ciccone v. Cavalry Portfolio, No. 21-CV-2428 (JS) (JMW), 2021 WL 5591725, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2021).In light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion, the Court directs Plaintiff to either voluntarily dismiss this case or file a letter showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing, on or before 2/11/2022. Should Plaintiff file a letter, Defendants shall file a response on or before 2/25/2022. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 1/28/2022. (Sharon, William) Modified on 1/28/2022 to correct response date. (Gonzalez, Fida).
|
|
ORDER: By 2/4/2022, Plaintiff shall serve a copy of the Court's 1/28/2022 Order to Show Cause on Defendants and file proof of service. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 1/28/2022. (Sharon, William)
|
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Joseph Perl. Sontag & Hyman P.C. served on 12/17/2021, answer due 1/7/2022. (Deutsch, Raphael) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Sontag & Hyman P.C.. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 2 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen and Magistrate Judge James R. Cho. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against John Does 1-25, Sontag & Hyman P.C. filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-15099634 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -no,, filed by Joseph Perl. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Proposed Summons) (Deutsch, Raphael) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
