Andrew Magdy v. I.C. System, Inc., No. 21-3010 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff sued I.C. System, Inc. (ICS) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for violating 15 U.S.C. Section 1692c(b), which prohibits a debt collector from contacting a third party about the collection of a debt without the prior consent of the consumer. The district court granted ICS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Plaintiff, a non-consumer, lacked standing to bring a cause of action under Section 1692c(b).
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it joined the other circuits that have considered this issue in concluding that non-consumers cannot bring a claim under Section 1692c(b). The court further concluded that there was no abuse of discretion because Plaintiff failed to follow the applicable rules, including Eastern District of Missouri Local Rule 4.01(A). Further, the court wrote that Plaintiff confuses Article III standing, which implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is undisputed here, and statutory standing. Thus, because Plaintiff only alleged a violation of Section 1692c(b) and the district court correctly determined that Section 1692c(b) does not provide Plaintiff standing to sue, judgment as a matter of law was appropriate.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act] An attorney brought this action alleging a violation of the Act when a debt collection contacted him about the debt of a party he had never represented; the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff, a non-consumer, lacked standing to sue under the Act; in doing so, this court joins other circuits in concluding that non-consumers cannot bring a claim under Sec. 1692c(b) of the Act; the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant plaintiff leave to amend his petition as plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable local rule governing motion practice. Judge Stras, dissenting.
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.