In a case that is being defended by the team at Frost Echols, a District Court judge in Florida has denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case back to state court, ruling the plaintiff’s demand for actual damages in the complaint, coupled with implication of the actual offense that was allegedly committed, indicated that the plaintiff suffered a concrete injury and thus has standing to sue in federal court.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Boukardougha v. Afni Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a phone call from a representative of the defendant, seeking to reach someone named Mathiew, according to the complaint. The plaintiff told the representative he didn’t know anyone by that name and to stop calling. Nonetheless, the defendant called the plaintiff again seeking to reach Mathiew. The plaintiff then filed suit in state court, alleging the defendant violated Section 1692d of the FDCPA and seeking statutory and actual damages. The defendant then removed the case to federal court, at which point the plaintiff sought to remand the case back to state court.
But not so fast, ruled Judge Paul G. Byron of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiff, in his complaint, said he was seeking not just statutory damages, but actual damages as well. The plaintiff attempted to walk back his demand for actual damages in his motion to remand the case, which Judge Byron doesn’t let slide. But along with that, the type of injury suffered by the plaintiff — the receipt of an unsolicited phone call — bears “a close relationship to the traditional tort of intrusion upon seclusion,” the judge wrote.
“All things considered, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s mere allegations, whether intended or not, demonstrate a concrete injury in fact, thus establishing Article III standing,” the judge determined.
