SMITH v. LVNV FUNDING LLC

M.D. Georgia

SMITH v. LVNV FUNDING LLC

DecidedMay 11, 2023

Docket5:22-cv-00023

StatusUnknown

This text of SMITH v. LVNV FUNDING LLC (SMITH v. LVNV FUNDING LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

SMITH v. LVNV FUNDING LLC, (M.D. Ga. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

TRACIE SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-23 (MTT) ) LVNV FUNDING LLC, ) ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff Tracie Smith filed a lawsuit alleging Defendant LVNV Funding LLC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (“FDCPA”) when LVNV failed to remove a dispute comment from Smith’s credit disclosures. Doc. 1. Smith and LVNV both moved for summary judgment. Docs. 22; 24. LVNV argued that Smith did not have standing to assert a claim under the FDCPA because she has not suffered a concrete injury. Doc. 24-2 at 7. On May 10, 2023, Smith filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this action with prejudice. Doc. 33. Smith states “[c]onsidering recent opinions” that “were issued within the last few months and did not exist when [she] filed this action,” she “has decided to not pursue her claims any further.” Id. at 1-2. “[I]n most cases a voluntary dismissal should be allowed unless the defendant will suffer some plain prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.” Fisher v. Puerto Rico Marine Mgmt., Inc., 940 F.2d 1502, 1502-03 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Durham v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 385 F.2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1967)). “[T]he decision whether or not to grant such a dismissal is within the sound discretion of the district court and reviewable only for abuse of discretion.” Id. (citing LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 1976)). Here, LVNV “agrees with [Smith] that the Court should dismiss” Smith’s claims. Doc. 34 at 2. Therefore, dismissal is proper.

Accordingly, Smith’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 33) is GRANTED and Smith’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Additionally, Smith’s and LVNV’s motions for summary judgment (Docs. 22; 24) are DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED, this 11th day of May, 2023. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

TRACIE SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-23 (MTT) ) LVNV FUNDING LLC, ) ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff Tracie Smith filed a lawsuit alleging Defendant LVNV Funding LLC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (“FDCPA”) when LVNV failed to remove a dispute comment from Smith’s credit disclosures. Doc. 1. Smith and LVNV both moved for summary judgment. Docs. 22; 24. LVNV argued that Smith did not have standing to assert a claim under the FDCPA because she has not suffered a concrete injury. Doc. 24-2 at 7. On May 10, 2023, Smith filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this action with prejudice. Doc. 33. Smith states “[c]onsidering recent opinions” that “were issued within the last few months and did not exist when [she] filed this action,” she “has decided to not pursue her claims any further.” Id. at 1-2. “[I]n most cases a voluntary dismissal should be allowed unless the defendant will suffer some plain prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.” Fisher v. Puerto Rico Marine Mgmt., Inc., 940 F.2d 1502, 1502-03 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Durham v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 385 F.2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1967)). “[T]he decision whether or not to grant such a dismissal is within the sound discretion of the district court and reviewable only for abuse of discretion.” Id. (citing LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 1976)). Here, LVNV “agrees with [Smith] that the Court should dismiss” Smith’s claims. Doc. 34 at 2. Therefore, dismissal is proper.

Accordingly, Smith’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 33) is GRANTED and Smith’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Additionally, Smith’s and LVNV’s motions for summary judgment (Docs. 22; 24) are DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED, this 11th day of May, 2023. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

SMITH v. LVNV FUNDING LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-lvnv-funding-llc-gamd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack