Mary Ebaugh v. Medicredit, Inc., a Missouri Corporation

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1838
___________________________
Mary Ebaugh
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Medicredit, Inc., a Missouri Corporation
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: April 4, 2025
Filed: April 11, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Mary Ebaugh appeals following the district court’s dismissal of her action
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for lack of standing. We
reverse and remand the case for further proceedings.

-- 1 of 2 --

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that Ebaugh alleged an injury
sufficient for standing. See Sarasota Wine Mkt., LLC v. Schmitt, 987 F.3d 1171,
1177 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338
(2016) (for Article III standing, plaintiff must allege, inter alia, they suffered
concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury in fact; plaintiff bears burden
of establishing standing and at pleading stage, must clearly allege facts demonstrating
each element). Specifically, Ebaugh clearly alleged facts demonstrating that she
suffered a concrete injury when she purchased postage and an envelope to send
Medicredit, Inc.’s improper communication to her counsel, an act that was caused by
the FDCPA violation and that was necessary to allow reassertion of Ebaugh’s right
not to be contacted directly while represented by counsel. See TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 425 (2021) (plaintiff suffered concrete injury under Article
III if defendant caused monetary injury to plaintiff); Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding
Corp., 580 U.S. 451, 464 (2017) (for standing purposes, loss of even small amount
of money is ordinarily injury); Mack v. Resurgent Cap. Servs., L.P., 70 F.4th 395,
405-07 (7th Cir. 2023) (time, effort, and money for postage consumer spent
responding to improper debt collector communication constituted concrete injury;
consumer was not merely clearing up own confusion, but was fixing problem debt
collector created by reasserting her FDCPA rights).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --