This is one of those “I’m not an attorney, but it seems like an interesting case because I think it speaks to something that a panelist said on one of my webinars would start happening” cases. A District Court judge in Wisconsin has granted a plaintiff’s motion to remand a case back to state court after agreeing that she lacked standing to sue in federal court, a point that was brought up by the defendant, which asked to move the case to federal court in the first place. Legal experts have predicted that plaintiffs would likely use state courts more, especially within the Seventh Circuit, following a series of rulings late last year that addressed the topic of standing and set a higher bar for plaintiffs to clear in order to have their cases heard in federal court.
A copy of the the ruling in this case, Markovic v. United Collection Bureau, can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant that included offers to settle the debt for less than the full amount owed. The letter included the statement that the defendant was “not obligated to renew” the settlement offers that were made in the letter. She filed suit in state court, alleging the disclosure violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act.
The defendant filed a motion to remove the case to federal court, and then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because she had not suffered a concrete injury. The plaintiff responded with the motion to remove the case back to state court, essentially asking why the defendant moved the case to federal court — asserting that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction — arguing that the removal of the case to federal court was “fundamentally inconsistent” with claiming that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue. While the defendant then withdrew its standing objection, it noted that the judge had a duty to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction on his own.
After a hearing last week, Judge Brett Ludwig of the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, agreed with the plaintiff and remanded the case back to state court, ruling that “whether a plaintiff who has not suffered an injury in fact can proceed in that forum under Wisconsin standing rules is for the state court to decide.”
