Consumer is Responsible for Default Judgment; Court Dismisses Class Action Lawsuit on Standing

There seems to be an enhanced focus on defending lawsuits for a lack of standing lately, particularly in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (for example, see this, this, and this). While it may seem like these Standing challenges are becoming repetitive, we shouldn’t look away just yet; interesting decisions are still coming out such as the recent opinion in Milisavljevic vs. Midland Credit Management, No 19-cv-08449 (N.D. IL Jan. 24, 2022).

In Milisavljevic, the consumer alleged the debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDPCA) when it sent him a blank notice of a motion for default judgment, which in his opinion, gave the impression that it had been originated and drafted by the state court. Believing the draft motion came from the court and a judgment had already been entered against him, the consumer chose to do nothing, and a default judgment was ultimately entered against him by the state court. The consumer did not retain counsel until after the judgment was entered.

The Court dismissed the consumer's lawsuit against the debt collector holding that various emotional distresses and the expenditure of "time, money, and energy” were insufficient to create standing. The court explicitly pointed out that the consumer did not allege anywhere in his complaint that he paid money he did not owe. 

View this content by subscribing

Please register to unlock this content

I already have an account. Log in