A Magistrate Court judge in New York has ruled that a defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case failed to show that the plaintiff suffered a concrete injury after removing the case to federal court, and has remanded the case back to state court where it was originally filed.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Burgos v. TrueAccord can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff accused the defendant of violating the FDCPA by sending an email indicating that the plaintiff no longer owed a debt to the original creditor, but now owed money to a different creditor because it had purchased the account referenced in the letter. The defendant did not possess any proof that the debt was owed by the plaintiff to the creditor, according to the complaint.
The defendant removed the case to federal court, at which point the judge sought to confirm the plaintiff had standing for the case to be heard in federal court. The defendant argued that plaintiff’s claims for negligence and that said negligence caused the plaintiff to suffer a “a compensable harm and is entitled to recover actual, treble, exemplary and punitive damages” required the plaintiff to allege that an injury was suffered.
But the plaintiff only believed that he may have been harmed by the defendant, noted Judge James M. Wicks of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. “Whether Plaintiff’s subjective belief that Defendant has caused them an actual, compensable harm is wholly irrelevant,” Judge Wicks wrote. “Instead, non-conclusory allegations supporting concrete harm are required. In his reply, Plaintiff correctly notes that courts in this circuit have held that just because a plaintiff has alleged actual damages does not mean that subject matter jurisdiction is automatically conferred.”
Ultimately, “conclusory” allegations of injury and “nebulous” claims of harm are not enough for the plaintiff to have standing to sue in federal court, Judge Wicks ruled.
