Mumin v. Miller & Milone, P.C.

Background

Ayana Mumin sued Miller & Milone, P.C., under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law governing debt-collection practices. She alleged that the firm unlawfully tried to collect a hospital debt that she did not actually owe.

Mumin was treated at New York Presbyterian Hospital after sustaining injuries during her employment as a correctional officer. About a month later, she received an invoice for the treatment. On May 14, 2020, Miller & Milone sent her a letter stating that it represented the hospital regarding her outstanding bill. The letter requested insurance or other payment information and stated that it was an attempt to collect a debt.

After discovery ended, Mumin stated that she believed she had lost a promotion because her employer learned that she was the target of a collection effort. The opinion states that she did not identify a specific reason for not receiving the promotion and had sworn during discovery that she had no damages.

Motions and Standing

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Miller & Milone argued both that Mumin lacked constitutional standing because she had not suffered an actual injury and that the letter did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mumin argued that she had standing and that a factual dispute existed about whether the letter violated the statute.

The court explained that constitutional standing requires an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. It relied on decisions holding that a possible or unsupported risk of harm is not enough. The court found that Mumin's belief that the collection effort caused her to lose a promotion was unsupported and was not based on facts she could properly present as evidence. The court also relied on her sworn admission that she had no damages.

Ruling

The court held that Mumin had not established a concrete injury and therefore lacked standing to pursue her claims. Because standing is required for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the court concluded that it lacked authority to hear the action.

The court granted Miller & Milone's motion for summary judgment and denied Mumin's motion for summary judgment. It stated that it had no occasion to address the substantive question of whether the collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Clerk of Court was directed to close both motions and the action.