The price of a stamp and “loss of productive time” were enough for a federal judge in Oklahoma to deny a plaintiff’s motion to remand a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case back to state court where it was originally filed, saying those monetary losses were sufficient for the plaintiff to have standing to sue.
The background: The plaintiff accused the defendant of violating the FDCPA by falsely reporting that the plaintiff had disputed the underlying debt, and then furnishing that information to the credit reporting agencies.
- In filing her suit, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered actual damages in the form of, “defamation, personal embarrassment, loss of money with postage, loss of productive time, emotional distress, frustration, creditworthiness, negatively effecting credit rating, purchasing power and amongst other negative emotions”
- The suit was originally filed in state court, after which the defendant removed it to federal court. The plaintiff then sought to have the case remanded back to state court, arguing she did not have standing to sue because she did not suffer a concrete injury.
The ruling: Not so fast, said Judge David L. Russell of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The defendant met its burden of establishing standing by noting that the plaintiff alleged to have suffered actual damages in the form of loss of money with postage and loss of productive time.
- Any monetary damage usually is enough for a judge to rule a plaintiff suffered a concrete injury and has standing to sue in federal court, and Judge Russell is no different. Referring to the loss of money with postage and loss of productive time as “monetary damages that traditionally ‘provid[e] a basis for lawsuit in American courts,” the judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to state court.
Learn more.
