Order | Filed: July 15, 2026
| Entered: July 15, 2026
Masri v. United Collection Bureau Inc.
Consumer Credit | New York Eastern
Order to Show Cause
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a putative class against Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sent him a debt collection letter that makes him "angry, confused, and scared," affects his "ability to intelligently respond to Defendant's collection efforts," and causes him to suffer "emotional harm in the form of severe anxiety and emotional distress." See ECF No. 1 Paragraphs 52, 56, 58.
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. 594 U.S. 413, 426-27 (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., 574 F. Supp. 3d 134, 144 (E.D.N.Y. 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, 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, 574 F. Supp. 3d at 145; Ciccone v. Cavalry Portfolio, No. 21-cv-2428, 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 file a letter showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing on or before July 22, 2026. Should Plaintiff file a letter, Defendant shall file a response on or before July 29, 2026. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 7/15/2026. (BC)