Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt.

Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

June 8, 2022, Decided

Nos. 19-2993 & 19-3109

Opinion

 [*729]  On Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Sykes, Chief Judge. On consideration of the petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc filed on April 15, 2022, a majority of judges in active service voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Rovner, Wood, Hamilton and Jackson-Akiwumi voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED.

Dissent by: HAMILTON

Dissent

Hamilton, Circuit Judge, joined by Rovner, Wood, and Jackson-Akiwumi, Circuit Judges, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. This case presents an important question on the extent of Congress's power under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce—its power to authorize private civil remedies for statutory violations that cause intangible but concrete injuries, including emotional distress, fear, and confusion.

Defendant Midland Credit Management violated the rights of plaintiff Pierre and a plaintiff class under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in trying to collect so-called [**3]  "zombie" debts—debts on which Midland knew the statute of limitations had expired. See Pantoja v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 852 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2017) (addressing merits of such claims). Midland tried to revive a debt that had been the subject of a suit against Pierre years earlier, ending in dismissal. Pierre was not fooled into paying on the debt, but she testified that Midland's attempt to revive the debt had caused her emotional distress and anxiety. Anyone who has experienced financial insecurity can easily understand her injuries. A jury awarded Pierre and the class statutory damages of $350,000. The panel reversed, however, finding that Pierre lacked standing even to bring this suit.

The constitutional issue here is whether a plaintiff who proves a violation of the Act in attempting to collect a debt from her can show standing based on injuries that are intangible but quite real. Such injuries may include emotional distress, stress, anxiety, and the distress that can be caused by unlawful attempts to collect consumer debts.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

36 F.4th 728 *; 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 15759 **; 2022 WL 2062526

RENETRICE R. PIERRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 16 C 2895 — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.

On Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.

Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 29 F.4th 934, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8770 (7th Cir. Ill., Apr. 1, 2022)

CORE TERMS

emotional distress, damages, common law, cases, intangible, harms, violations, en banc, consumers, concrete, injuries, distress, anxiety, petition for rehearing, invasion of privacy, close relationship, courts, rights, constitutional law, intangible injury, humiliation, defamation, authorize, remedies, psychological, emotional, practices, assault, zombie