No. 20-1673

Ashley Nettles v. Midland Funding LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2021-06-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: article-iii-standing circuit-split concrete-injury fair-debt-collection-practices-act procedural-rights separation-of-powers spokeo-v-robins
Key Terms:
Arbitration Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Whether, under Spokeo, it is sufficient for standing simply to allege a violation of the procedural rights created by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as six circuits have held, or must a plaintiff also always allege an additional injury beyond such a violation, as five circuits (including the Seventh in this case) have held?

2. If some additional injury is required for standing under the Act, is it sufficient to allege mental distress or lost time dealing with a violation of the Act, as the Fourth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have held, or is something more than mental distress or lost time required, as the Seventh (in this case) and Ninth Circuits have held?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is sufficient for Article III standing, or if additional injury must be alleged

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2021-08-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-18
Reply of petitioner Ashley Nettles filed. (Distributed)
2021-08-02
Brief of respondents Midland Funding LLC, et al. in opposition filed.
2021-06-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 2, 2021.
2021-06-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 2, 2021 to August 2, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-05-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 2, 2021)

Attorneys

Ashley Nettles
Gene Clayton SchaerrSchaerr | Jaffe, Petitioner
Midland Funding LLC, et al.
Kannon K. ShanmugamPaul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Respondent