a violation .of a procedural right. In other words, one should not be distracted by minnows when the aim of the statute is trout. Here, the Yeagers allege a notice delay of 13 days and nothing more. There, is no evidence that the delay has in any way undermined the FDCPA’s goal of providing a consumer with notice of, and an opportunity to challenge, a creditor’s debt information. Surely, the Spokeo commonsense principle dictates that this delay, unaccompanied, by any harm or material risk of harm, does not “entail a degree of risk sufficient to meet' the concreteness requirement.” Id. What the Yeagers have is a minnow; the trout are still .out there. The Yeagers, therefore, lack standing to bring this lawsuit. Cf. Nicklaw v. Citimortgage, Inc., 839 F.3d 998, 1001 (11th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); Dutta v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No.
holding that the note and the mortgage must coexist to give the mortgage validity holding that foreclosure of prior mortgage extinguished second mortgage holding that a mortgage or modification of a mortgage is not a good or a service under the dtpa holding that because there was no evidence of harm or material risk of harm the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a suit for statutory damages based on the defendants belated recordation of a certificate of discharge of the plaintiffs mortgage which a new york statute required to be recorded within 30 days after satisfaction of the mortgage holding court could consider a mortgage agreement not attached to the complaint in ruling on motion to dismiss because the complaint refers to the mortgage numerous times the mortgage is attached to this motion and is central to plaintiffs claims