GUSTAV BUCHHOLZ v. MEYER NJUS TANICK, PA - Articles

All Content

GUSTAV BUCHHOLZ v. MEYER NJUS TANICK, PA

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jan 3, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1:

ARGUED: Philip D. Stern, STERN THOMASSON LLP, Springfield, New Jersey, for Appellant. Kathleen H. Klaus, MADDIN HAUSER ROTH & HELLER, Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 2:

ON BRIEF: Philip D. Stern, Andrew T. Thomasson, Francis R. Greene, STERN THOMASSON LLP, Springfield, New Jersey, for Appellant. Kathleen H. Klaus, MADDIN HAUSER ROTH & HELLER, Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): COOK, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Gustav Buchholz received two letters from law firm Meyer Njus Tanick, PA (“MNT”) about two debts he owed to Synchrony Bank. The letters, which appeared on MNT letterhead and were signed by an MNT attorney, informed Buchholz that MNT was acting as a debt collector and provided contact information for him to either challenge or pay the debts. Buchholz does not dispute the debts, but he alleges that the letters made him feel anxious and fear that MNT would sue him if he did not promptly pay.

But Buchholz’s case fails before we can even consider its merits. Because Buchholz has shown no injury in fact that is traceable to MNT’s challenged conduct, he lacks standing to sue, and we lack jurisdiction to hear his case. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Buchholz’s complaint.

Attachments: