Trial Spotlight: Federal Court in Wisconsin Rules FDCPA Plaintiff Lacks Standing
Court also orders plaintiff's counsel to "show cause" why he should not be sanctioned for "egregious omissions" in opposition brief regarding applicable legal precedent
A Hinshaw legal team in Milwaukee recently secured a summary judgment victory on behalf of client Dobberstein Law Firm in an FDCPA lawsuit filed in Wisconsin federal court. The court systematically rebutted each of the plaintiff's claims, cited a series of controlling precedents, and held that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue as she did not suffer a concrete or particularized injury. Hinshaw partner David Hanus represented Dobberstein in the case, with assistance from associate Steven Miracle.
The court did not stop there, however. Noting what it called "egregious omissions" in the plaintiff's opposition brief—among them a failure to acknowledge the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Henson v. Santander regarding passive debt buyers—the court called on plaintiff's counsel to "show cause" why he should not be sanctioned.
The case is Susan Endres v. UHG I LLC and Dobberstein Law Firm, case number 20-cv-644-wmc
- "Endres v. UHG I: Court Finds Consumer Lacks Standing; Her Attorney Must Explain Why Court Shouldn’t Issue a Sanction," ACA Daily, ACA International, February 16, 2022 (member access only)
- "Judge Grants MSJ in FDCPA Case Lack of Standing," Daily Digest, AccountsRecovery.net, February 17, 2022