Gregory Light v. LVNV Funding, LLC

── Gregory Light v. LVNV Funding, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12041 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 1 of 16 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12041 ____________________ GREGORY LIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LVNV FUNDING, LLC and ANDREU PALMA LAVIN & SOLIS, PLLC, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-61655-AHS ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-12041 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 2 of 16 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12041 LAGOA, Circuit Judge: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act authorizes suits by “any person” harmed by a debt collector’s prohibited conduct. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692k(a). Ordinarily, the “person” who chooses to file suit is the consumer whose debt is being collected. Appellant Gregory Light, a Florida attorney, urges us to hold that the “per- son” can also be him, suing in his own name for the embarrass- ment, distress, and lost time he experienced while representing a client in a debt-collection action that did not go smoothly. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Light has not alleged a concrete injury in fact sufficient to establish Article III standing. I. BACKGROUND1 Light is a Florida attorney who regularly represents individ- uals in consumer-debt matters. Appellee LVNV Funding LLC (“LVNV”) is a debt-collection company, and Appellee Andreu Palma Lavin & Solis, PLLC (“APLS”) is the law firm LVNV re- tained to collect an alleged debt from Franklyn Rodriguez. In April 2023, LVNV, through APLS, sued Rodriguez in Broward County, Florida Court. The case was assigned to the small-claims division. 1 We draw the following facts from Light’s First Amended Complaint and the documents attached to it. We accept as true the facts as set forth in the First Amended Complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in Light’s favor. Ran- dall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010). USCA11 Case: 25-12041 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 3 of 16 25-12041 Opinion of the Court 3 On August 22, 2023, the day before a scheduled pretrial conference, Rodriguez retained Light to represent him. Light then contacted APLS to try to resolve the case before the pretrial conference. Ac- cording to the First Amended Complaint, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case, and APLS represented to Light that it would inform the county court of the settlement at the next day’s pretrial conference. Based on that representation, Light did not attend the pretrial conference. On August 23, 2023, the county court entered a default against Rodriguez for failing to appear at the pretrial conference. The court also required LVNV to submit a proposed settlement or judgment package within thirty days of the default order or face dismissal. Light alleges t