Susan Stromberg filed a putative class action against debt collectors Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management in 2016, alleging they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending collection letters on time-barred debt without proper disclosures. Stromberg died on April 23, 2023, during the litigation, and her daughter Heather Dunham was later appointed Administrator Ad Prosequendum of her estate. Dunham sought to substitute herself as plaintiff to continue the lawsuit alleging the defendants misrepresented that the debt was enforceable and failed to warn that payment could restart the statute of limitations.
Hammer found that FDCPA claims are remedial rather than penal in nature and therefore survive a plaintiff's death. 'The FDCPA was passed because of Congressional concern that abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy,' Hammer wrote, explaining that 'penalties do not survive for the reason that a decedent is beyond punishment, whereas remedial statutes survive because they are intended to compensate an injured party.' The judge noted that multiple courts have permitted substitution in FDCPA cases, including decisions in Cruz v. Int'l Collection Corp. and Mason v. Asset Acceptance, LLC.
The case had a complex procedural history, with defendants arguing the substitution motion was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25's 90-day deadline. The rule requires motions to substitute be filed within 90 days of a formal suggestion of death on the record. Plaintiff's counsel had notified the court of Stromberg's death in a January 2025 letter, but Hammer found the court had effectively extended the deadline when it administratively terminated the case in December 2025 and set January 9, 2026, as the deadline for any substitution motion. The case was originally stayed in 2017 and reopened after the Third Circuit's decision in Tatis v. Allied Interstate, which held that settlement offers on time-barred debt could violate the FDCPA.
The ruling allows the lawsuit to proceed with Dunham as the substitute plaintiff, though significant challenges remain. Defendants have indicated they may challenge Article III standing based on a recent decision in Filgueiras v. Midland Funding, and the court previously denied class certification without prejudice in April 2024. The case highlights ongoing litigation over debt collection practices involving time-barred debts, an area of increasing scrutiny under consumer protection laws.