Medicredit

Full title: JASON SAGGIO, Plaintiff, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri

Date published: May 2, 2023

Facts

In July 2022, Plaintiff Jason Saggio, a Florida resident, alleges that he received a “prerecorded robotic message” from Defendant Medicredit, a medical debt collector incorporated and headquartered in Missouri, attempting to collect a consumer debt from an individual named Lucy. The message instructed the recipient to “press 2 if you are not this person.” The plaintiff pressed 2, and the call ended. Plaintiff then filed this putative class action, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., arguing that Plaintiff suffered no injury in fact and therefore lacks standing to sue. Alternatively, Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that the facts pleaded in Plaintiff’s complaint fail to establish a TCPA violation. Should the court decline to dismiss the complaint entirely, the Defendant seeks to strike the class allegations under Rule 12(f).

Issue

Decision

While Plaintiff’s injury may be de minimus in extent, the nature of the injury is the salient inquiry here, and Plaintiff alleges the type of intrusion intended to confer standing under the TCPA at least sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The same holds concerning Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief available under the statute.

Likewise, accepting the allegations as true at this stage, the Court declines to strike Plaintiff’s class allegations at this time notwithstanding the potential deficiencies raised by Defendant. The Court will consider the scope and composition of the class, as well as Plaintiff’s suitability as a class representative, in later proceedings on a more adequate record.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint or strike Plaintiff’s class allegations is DENIED. (Doc. 13).

An order requiring the parties to submit a joint proposed scheduling plan will be issued separately.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 × 1 =