A District Court judge in Illinois has partially granted and partially denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case back to state court where it was originally filed, ruling that it has jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims that the defendant failed to note the account was disputed with the credit reporting agencies.
The background: The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sent a collection letter to her home despite her request for communications to be sent only via text or email; and second, that the defendant reported the plaintiff’s debt to credit reporting agencies without noting that the debt was disputed. The case was initially filed in state court but was later removed to federal court by the defendant.
- The plaintiff argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over her claims and moved to remand the case back to state court. In particular, the plaintiff contended that the claims related to the collection letter did not demonstrate a concrete injury sufficient to support federal jurisdiction under the FDCPA.
The ruling: Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois agreed with both sides, essentially dividing the case in two and sending some of the claims back to state court while keeping some in federal court.
- Judge Durkin determined that he did not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims regarding the letter. Citing precedent, he noted that receiving a letter through the mail does not, in itself, establish a concrete harm.
- However, the court found that it did have jurisdiction over the claim related to the defendant’s failure to report the disputed debt to credit reporting agencies. This claim, the court noted, involves a concrete harm similar to defamation, as established by the Seventh Circuit in Ewing v. MED-1 Sols., where a failure to report a dispute to credit agencies was recognized as a concrete injury.
- Judge Durkin concluded that the claims regarding the collection letter should be severed and remanded to state court, while the claim regarding the reporting of the disputed debt would remain in federal court.
