A District Court judge in Wisconsin has denied a defendant’s attempt to keep a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case in federal court, and granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to state court on the grounds that the plaintiff did not suffer a concrete injury and thus has no standing to sue in federal court. The judge didn’t buy the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff made a “plausible inference” to suffering an actual injury by claiming a collection letter allegedly miscalculated the amount of interest that was owed on an unpaid debt.
A copy of the ruling in the case of O’Boyle v. Unifin and Resurgent Capital Services can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter that attempted to collect on an unpaid judgment. The plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the letter overstated the amount of the debt and made a material misstatement when it informed her that the amount due on the day a payment was made might be greater than the balance in the letter because of accruing interest or other charges. The plaintiff filed suit in Wisconsin state court, and the defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing the plaintiff failed to “thread the needle” between recent standing decisions in order to keep her case in federal court.
But Judge Pamela Pepper of the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin didn’t see it the same way as the defendant. Ultimately, because the plaintiff only claimed to have been confused by the contents of the letter she received from the defendant, she did not meet the threshold for having suffered a concrete injury, Judge Pepper ruled.
“The court is unpersuaded by the defendant’s claim that ‘there are plausibly nominal damages related to the alleged charging of improper interest on a judgment’ and the defendant’s speculation that, after remanding, the plaintiff ‘could
