No. 21-2864 ___________________________ Kelly Bassett, individually and as heir of James M. Bassett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Credit Bureau Services, Inc.; C.J. Tighe

Defendants - Appellants ___________________________

No. 22-1206 ___________________________ Kelly Bassett, individually and as heir of James M. Bassett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Credit Bureau Services, Inc.; C.J. Tighe

Defendants - Appellants ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: November 15, 2022 Filed: February 24, 2023 ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Kelly M. Bassett sued Credit Bureau Services, Inc. and C.J. Tighe (collectively, the “collectors”) for unfair debt-collection practices. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law to Bassett and the plaintiff class. Because Bassett did not suffer a concrete injury in fact, she lacks Article III standing. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court vacates and remands.

I.

The collectors sent Bassett (and her deceased husband) a letter demanding payment for medical bills. The letter listed amounts owed without distinguishing interest from principal. The letter said, “Interest and other charges may accrue daily.” The amounts included interest on Bassett’s debts for which assessing interest was disputed and legally uncertain. Tighe drafted the template for the letter (which the collectors used at least 9,796 times). Bassett brought a class action against the collectors, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (“FDCPA”), and the Nebraska Consumer Practices Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59- 1601 (“NCPA”).

The collectors moved for summary judgment, alleging Bassett lacked Article III standing. The district court denied the motion. A jury returned a verdict for the collectors on all counts except the NCPA claim, which was not tried before a jury. After trial, the district court ruled it had provided inaccurate instructions to the jury and, sua sponte, entered judgment as a matter of law for Bassett on the NCPA and

-2- FDCPA claims. The district court specifically ruled that the NCPA does not authorize collection of prejudgment interest without a judgment.

The collectors appeal, alleging (i) Bassett does not have Article III standing, (ii) the district court erred in allowing her to introduce an issue at trial without notice, (iii) the district court erred in determining that the NCPA requires a judgment before collecting prejudgment interest, (iv) the district court abused its discretion in finding Bassett an adequate class representative, (v) the district court abused its discretion in certifying the FDCPA class, (vi) the district court erred in denying the collectors a jury trial for the NCPA claim, (vii) the district court abused its discretion in certifying the NCPA class, (viii) the district court erred in holding Tighe individually liable for the collectors’ conduct, and (ix) the district court abused its discretion in awarding Bassett attorneys’ fees, c