A District Court judge in Wisconsin has granted a plaintiff’s motion to remand a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case back to state court where it was originally filed, while also declining to rule on a defendant’s motion for sanctions against the plaintiff and his attorney and another defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Background: The plaintiff, originally representing himself, filed the suit in state court. The defendant removed the case to federal court, at which point an attorney filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the plaintiff.
- One of the defendants filed a motion for sanctions after the plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition and failed to respond to the defendant’s request for interrogatories and production of documents. The plaintiff did not respond to that motion, or to an expedited motion for leave to file supplemental exhibits to the pending motion for sanctions.
- The plaintiff only started responding after another defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, by filing a motion to remand the case back to state court.
- The defendants opposed the motion on the grounds it took the plaintiff 11 months to file it and it was only filed after failing to appear for his deposition or engage in discovery.
The Ruling: The problem for the defendants is that by removing the case to federal court, they bear the burden of proving the plaintiff has standing, noted Judge Pamela Pepper of the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The defendants attempt to prove their argument by relying solely on the allegations made in the complaint, which was filed without the assistance of an attorney. The complaint alleged the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to incur costs and a loss of credit opportunities.
- These are too vague and abstract for the plaintiff to have standing, ruled Judge Pepper. And neither defendant argued that it needed the deposition or documents to address the motion to remand.
- “In the absence of any allegation that the harm materialized and that the plaintiff experienced a concrete injury, the court will grant the motion to remand,” Judge Pepper ruled.
