Kohn v. Arcon Credit Solutions LLC et al
| Breindy Kohn |
| Arcon Credit Solutions LLC, Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC and John Does 1-25 |
| 1:2021cv06893 |
| December 14, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Roanne L Mann |
| 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 January 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Breindy Kohn (Deutsch, Raphael) |
| Civil Case Terminated. Pursuant to the #8 notice of voluntary dismissal, this case is dismissed and closed. (Stephan, Keegan) |
ORDER: Although the parties report that they have reached a settlement in this matter (see Dkt. #7 ), the Court will not "retain jurisdiction" where it has asked Plaintiff to show cause that the jurisdictional requirement of standing has been satisfied (see id.). Thus, as previously directed, Plaintiff must either voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or show that she has standing to prosecute. Since Plaintiff has missed the January 18, 2022 deadline, the Court sua sponte extends that deadline to January 28, 2022. If Plaintiff seeks to show standing, Defendant must respond by February 4, 2022. The Court will not approve any settlement unless it is satisfied that Plaintiff, in fact, has standing to bring this action.Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 1/21/2022. (Stephan, Keegan)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Settlement by Breindy Kohn (Deutsch, Raphael) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff brings this putative class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. (the "FDCPA"), alleging that Defendants violated the FDCPA because a debt collection letter sent to Plaintiff -- which offered "settlement terms" and referred to "possible legal action" -- was "false," "misleading," "threatening," "harassing," and caused an "informational injury." Plaintiff further alleges that she suffered a "concrete and particularized harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides Plaintiff with the legally protected right to be not to be misled or treated unfairly with respect to any action for the collection of any consumer debt."Prior to 2021, it was believed 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, and established that, even where a defendant's conduct is prohibited by statute, a Plaintiff may not have standing to sue in federal court if the plaintiff has not suffered an injury in fact. 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 district have applied that principle to the types of injuries 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 *2, 8 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2021) (allegedly misleading notices do not establish standing); id. at 67 (threats of being sued or harm to credit scores do not establish an injury in fact); In re FDCPA Mailing Vendor Cases, No. 21-CV-2312 (GRB), 2021 WL 3160794, at *1, 7 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2021) (same); id. at 7 ("Finally, to the extent counsel attempts to characterize the notices as constituting informational violations of the statute, without alleging any harm, such efforts do not confer standing." (citing TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2214 ("An asserted informational injury that causes no adverse effects cannot satisfy Article III." (internal quotation marks omitted))). 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).Accordingly, by January 20, 2022, Plaintiff is required to either voluntarily dismiss this case or file a letter showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 1/3/2022. (Stephan, Keegan)
|
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Breindy Kohn. Arcon Credit Solutions LLC served on 12/27/2021, answer due 1/17/2022. (Deutsch, Raphael) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Breindy Kohn. Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC served on 12/27/2021, answer due 1/17/2022. (Deutsch, Raphael) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC, Arcon Credit Solutions LLC. (Attachments: #1 Summons) (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) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC, Arcon Credit Solutions LLC, John Does 1-25 filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-15114832 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -no,, filed by Breindy Kohn. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Proposed Summons, #4 Proposed Summons) (Deutsch, Raphael) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen and Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann. 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) |
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.
