Niemann v. LVNV Funding CA6

Filed 3/13/26 Niemann v. LVNV Funding CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JEFFREY P. NIEMANN, H052797 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 22CV402583)

v.

LVNV FUNDING, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Jeffery P. Niemann appeals the dismissal of his consumer class action under the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act.1 The trial court ruled he lacked standing because he alleged no actual harm from the claimed violation of the Act’s notice requirement. As we will explain, we will reverse the judgment because we conclude that the Act confers standing on any person who pleads that a debt buyer violated the Act regardless of any actual harm. I. BACKGROUND We take our factual summary from plaintiff’s complaint, accepting as true all well-pleaded material facts. (Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Sream, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 721, 728–729.) Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC is a debt buyer that purchased plaintiff’s consumer debt from the original creditor Citibank N.A., which had charged off the debt as a loss when plaintiff defaulted on his payments.2 Defendant

Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq.; undesignated statutory references are to this Code. 1

2 The Act defines “Debt Buyer” as “a person or entity that is regularly engaged in the business of purchasing charged-off consumer debt for collection purposes, whether it collects the

(through its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc.) sent plaintiff a written communication about the debt that included the required notice of plaintiff’s right to request records, but in a smaller type size than required by the Act. (§ 1788.52, subd. (d)(1).) Plaintiff filed a class action complaint asserting a single cause of action and seeking statutory damages based on defendant’s violation of the Act’s minimum required type size. Defendant answered and moved for judgment on the pleadings under Code of Civil Procedure section 438. Defendant asserted plaintiff lacks standing in the absence of an allegation that the violation caused plaintiff any concrete injury or actual harm. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court based its decision on the reasoning of Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 671, 702, a decision ruling that plaintiffs who allege no actual harm or concrete injury lack standing under California state law to assert a claim for violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.). Plaintiff appealed following entry of judgment.