In the Matter of: Thomas J. Maiorino

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “a breach of the [FDCPA] does not, by itself, cause an injury in fact”
• noting that a plaintiff’s confusion and aggravation from a debt collection letter is not an injury in fact
• stating that “such grievances” of confusion and aggravation “are not injuries in fact in this context”
• noting that “a statutory violation alone” is not an injury in fact
• finding no FDCPA standing despite a dunning letter listing an incorrect debt amount and debt collector because the plaintiff did not make any payments and was able to properly dispute her debt
• noting “jurisdictional issues should be resolved ahead of issues on the merits,” but finding that to be “irrelevant” because the case was “still properly dismissed without prejudice, as required when a plaintiff lacks standing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).