That a District Court judge in New Jersey has remanded a Hunstein class-action case back to state court after ruling the plaintiff lacked standing is not a man-bites-dog type of story, but what makes this case slightly more unusual than the run-of-the-mill Hunstein cases that have been filed is that the both the plaintiff and the defendant were arguing to keep the case in federal court. The judge also denied a request from the plaintiff for a stay in the case, pending the outcome of a Hunstein case that was recently argued before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Okten v. ARS National Services can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff filed suit in New Jersey state court, alleging the defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it shared information about her with a vendor that prints and mails letters without her consent. The defendant removed the case to federal court, and then sought to have it dismissed.
The case has already been stayed once, and because the parties in the case before the Third Circuit are not the same, Judge William J. Martini of the District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the plaintiff’s motion to stay the case, pending the outcome of Barclift v. Keystone Credit Services.
With respect to whether the plaintiff has standing to sue in federal court, the plaintiff argued that an invasion of a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA is sufficient to have suffered a concrete injury, while the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claim to have suffered “ascertainable loss” and “compensable harm” was enough for the judge to rule the plaintiff had standing to sue.
Ultimately, Judge Martini disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument, determining that she must plead harm beyond a mere technical violation of the FDCPA to establish standing. And because the plaintiff failed to allege that her personal information was disseminated to the public — or to more than a single person — there are no “downstream consequences” the the alleged disclosure, the judge ruled.
