Ojogwu v. Rodenburg Law Firm, No. 20-2879 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
A judgment creditor’s attorney, Rodenburg, mailed the consumer debtor, Ojogwu a copy of the garnishment summons Rodenburg had served on garnishee US Bank, knowing that Ojogwu had retained counsel after the default judgment was entered and that he disputed the debt. The district court held that Minn. Stat. 571.72(4), which requires that copies of papers served on a third-party garnishee “be served by mail at the last known mailing address of the debtor not later than five days after the service is made upon the garnishee” was inconsistent with, and therefore preempted by, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: “Without the prior consent of the consumer . . . or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with collection of any debt . . . if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt.” 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(2).
The Eighth Circuit ordered the dismissal of the case. Under recent Supreme Court precedent, Ojogwu lacks Article III standing to pursue this claim in federal court because he failed to allege and the record does not show that he suffered concrete injury-in-fact from Rodenburg’s alleged violation of section 1692c(a)(2).
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In this action where defendant, plaintiff's judgment creditor, contacted him directly when it knew he had counsel, thereby violating 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1692c(a)(2), plaintiff lacked Article III standing to pursue the claim because he failed to allege and the record does not show that he suffered concrete injury in fact from defendant's violation of the Act; the intangible injuries alleged in the complaint are insufficient to establish concrete injury in fact; the judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.