Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Mark Patterson v. Howard Howe

Case No.: 22-3083

Officials: Easterbrook, Hamilton, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Attorney Howard Howe filed suit for a client in an Indiana state court against Mark Patterson to collect an unpaid educational debt. Along with the complaint and summons, Howe served Patterson with four requests for admission, as allowed by Indiana law. Howe did not warn Patterson that the requests would be deemed admitted if Patterson did not respond within thirty days. Patterson answered the complaint but did not respond to the requests for admission. As the Seventh Circuit explains below, however, Patterson did not alter his behavior in response to the requests for admission, and during the state-court proceedings, Howe never tried to take advantage of Patterson’s failure to respond.

Instead, while that action was pending, Patterson filed this separate federal lawsuit alleging that Howe’s practice of serving requests for admission, at least without warning him of the consequences of failing to respond, violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiff Patterson. The parties later stipulated to an award of statutory damages of $1,000 to Patterson, and the court awarded him more than $58,000 in attorney fees and costs. Defendant Howe has appealed both the merits judgment and the award of fees and costs. The Seventh Circuit vacates both judgments and order dismissal of the case. Under circuit law, Patterson lacks standing to bring his claim because he was not concretely harmed by Howe’s alleged statutory violation.

Vacated and Remanded.

Decided 03/21/24

Full Text