In Hagy v Demers & Adams, Case No. 17-3696 (February 16, 2018), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff with an otherwise valid claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not satisfy the “case and controversy” requirement under Article III of the federal constitution.

An attorney representing the creditor in Hagy sent a letter to the debtor’s attorney stating that the debtor didn’t owe anything else to the creditor. The letter didn’t include disclosures required under the FDCPA. So the debtor filed a lawsuit under the FDCPA and its Ohio-law analogue. The trial court declined to dismiss the debtor’s lawsuit, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. To read the full client alert, click on the headline.