There are no similar “objectively misleading” statements or omissions in the letter in this case. Plaintiff also relies on Adams v. Seterus, Inc., No. 18-12731, 2019 WL 4735157 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2019), for the proposition that standing is established based purely on alleged violations of the FDCPA. However, in that case, the issue was not whether the plaintiff failed to satisfy the first element of standing by not alleging an injury in fact.
Similarly, to the extent Clendening was misled regarding the deadline to answer the complaint, such a misstatement regarding the deadline does not appear to be the kind of harm that the FDCPA was designed to prevent. Clendening relies on Adams v. Seterus, Inc., 2019 WL 4735157, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2019) as a counter to Lyshe. There, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's misrepresentations that they would lose their home could "induc[e] homeowners into inaction or delay in asserting possible defenses, such that they may wrongfully lose their homes as a result."
Similarly, to the extent plaintiffs were misled regarding the deadline to answer the complaint, such a misstatement regarding the deadline does not appear to be the kind of harm that the FDCPA was designed to prevent. Plaintiffs rely on Adams v. Seterus, Inc., 2019 WL 4735157, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2019) as a counter to Lyshe. There, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's misrepresentations that they would lose their home could "induc[e] homeowners into inaction or delay in asserting possible defenses, such that they may wrongfully lose their homes as a result."
Plaintiff relies on Adams v. Seterus, Inc., 2019 WL 4735157, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2019) as a counter to Lyshe. There, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's misrepresentations that they would lose their home could "induc[e] homeowners into inaction or delay in asserting possible defenses, such that they may wrongfully lose their homes as a result."