The Seventh Circuit has been Ground Zero with respect to the issue of standing in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases. A District Court judge in Indiana has granted a plaintiff’s motion to remand a case back to state court — the second time she has done so in this matter — ruling that avoiding your family is not enough of a concrete injury to keep the case in federal court.
The background: The case was originally filed in May 2023 in Indiana state court. The plaintiff alleged the defendant violated both the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the FDCPA. The defendant initially removed the case to federal court, but after the plaintiff amended her complaint to drop the claim that her credit report had been sold to a third party, the remaining damages were limited to emotional distress. A judge ruled that such emotional harm did not qualify as a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing, and the case was remanded to state court.
- After the plaintiff asserted she suffered from physical manifestations of emotional distress in a state court filing — including avoiding physical contact with her family and not engaging in family activities — the defendant removed the case to federal court again.
- The plaintiff then filed another motion to remand the case back to state court.
The ruling: Judge Gretchen S. Lund of the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana disagreed with the defendant’s argument that the physical manifestations cited by the plaintiff — not speaking, making facial expressions to indicate her distress, and avoiding physical engagement with her family — constituted a concrete injury.
- “The ‘injuries’ identified by Defendant only give context to Plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress,” the judge wrote. “Defendant has not demonstrated, by case law or argument, that those injuries rise to the level of ‘physical manifestations’ of emotional distress.”
- The court noted that emotional injuries like stress, embarrassment, or avoidance behavior — even if observable by others — do not qualify as “concrete” injuries under controlling Seventh Circuit precedent.
- The defendant has filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim of suffering “tangible, monetary harms” constitutes standing to keep the case in federal court.
