Thomas v. Spring Oaks Capital, LLC
| Valerie Thomas |
| Spring Oaks Capital, LLC |
| 1:2022cv02533 |
| May 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Robert Blakey |
| Robert W Gettleman |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 EMAILED REMAND Letter with certified copy of Order dated7/1/22 to Clerk, Circuit Court of Cook County. (gcy, ) |
| Filing 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See [1-1]. Plaintiff alleged that, on or about October 6, 2021, Defendant sent her an email in an attempt to collect on her allegedly delinquent debt owed on a defaulted Celtic Bank account; the email conveyed various information regarding the account, including the amount owed, the identity of the original creditor, and an account number, and it indicated that, if Plaintiff resolved her account, Defendant would "request deletion of our tradeline from the credit bureaus" to which it reported. Id. at 21-26. But, Plaintiff alleged, Defendant was not the furnisher of the Celtic Bank tradeline and thus could not request removal of the account; its offer to do so constituted a false statement and provided false incentive to pay off the account. Id. at 27-29. Plaintiff claimed Defendant violated 1692e (when it claimed it would take action it could not legally take), 1692f (when it sent Plaintiff an email misrepresenting its ability to remove the Celtic Bank tradeline), and 1692g (when it failed to advise Plaintiff of her right to dispute the account, to request verification, and to request the name of the original creditor). Id. at 4850. Notably, she does not allege any particular harm stemming from the statutory violations; she sought statutory damages, fees and costs of suit. Id. at 13-14. Defendant removed the case 5/13/22, #1 , based upon the assertion of a federal cause of action #1 , and Plaintiff has moved to remand #8 , arguing that, because she did not allege any concrete harm apart from the statutory violation itself, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. To be sure, federal courts "have subject-matter jurisdiction only if constitutional standing requirements also are satisfied." Collier v. SP Plus Corp., 889 F.3d 894, 896 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing Spokeo, Inc., v. Robins, U.S., 136 S.Ct. 1540, 154748 (2016); Dunnet Bay Const. Co. v. Borggren, 799 F.3d 676, 68889 (7th Cir. 2015)). In Larkin v. Finance System of Green Bay, 982 F.3d 1060, 1064 (7th Cir. 2020), the Seventh Circuit noted that a plaintiff has standing if she has "(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial ruling." Id. "To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.' " Id. (quoting Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). "An injury is particularized if it 'affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way." Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n.1). And a "concrete injury is one that is real, not abstract"; but "concrete does not necessarily mean tangible" -- both "tangible and intangible harms can satisfy the concreteness requirement." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). When a plaintiff "sues for a bare procedural violation of a statute and has not alleged a concrete personal injury from the violation, he has not satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III." Id.at 106465. An FDCPA plaintiff who simply alleges a statutory violation lacks standing unless he also alleges that the statutory violation harmed him or presented an appreciable risk of harm to the underlying concrete interest that Congress sought to protect." Larkin, 982 F.3d at 1066 (quotations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has alleged statutory violations only; indeed, she argues in her remand motion that she does not allege any concrete or particularized harm apart from the statutory violations. Defendant notes that, in attempting to allege that a class action is the superior vehicle for resolving this dispute, she alleged that the "damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiff and members of the Class are relatively small," [1-1] at 46, thus suggesting that she has alleged concrete particularized harm. But Plaintiff emphatically disavows this characterization of her claim. Plaintiff is the master of her complaint, e.g., Boim v. Am. Muslims for Palestine, 9 F.4th 545, 557 (7th Cir. 2021), and this Court thus accepts her representation, knowing it will follow her back to state court. This Court grants Plaintiff's motion #8 , and remands the case to the Circuit Court. See, e.g., Collier v. SP Plus Corp., 889 F.3d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 2018) (because the case does not satisfy Article III's requirements, the court is required under 1447(c) to remand the case to state court). The Court denies Plaintiff's request for fees and costs, however, as without her representations concerning her allegations, Defendant may reasonably have assumed she could demonstrate Article III standing. The Court directs the Clerk to remand this case forthwith to the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 15 REPLY by Valerie Thomas to MOTION by Plaintiff Valerie Thomas to remand Motion to Remand and For Costs and Attorneys' Fees for Improper Removal #8 , response in opposition to motion #14 (Mccormick, Seth) |
| Filing 14 RESPONSE by Spring Oaks Capital, LLCin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Valerie Thomas to remand Motion to Remand and For Costs and Attorneys' Fees for Improper Removal #8 (Poncin, Michael) |
| Filing 13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Spring Oaks Capital, LLC by Michael S. Poncin (Poncin, Michael) |
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: On 5/13/2022, Defendant removed from state court Plaintiff's complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C.1692. #1 . Plaintiff now files a motion to remand and for costs and attorneys' fees for improper removal #8 arguing that, under Seventh Circuit case law, Plaintiff does not have standing to bring these claims in federal court since she alleges only an FDCPA statutory violation with no specific injury. She argues that Defendant, as the party removing this action, bears the burden to establish this Court's jurisdiction, which it cannot do. #8 para 7. Separately, Defendant filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to answer #9 . Given that Plaintiff's motion for remand #8 contests Article III standing and the Court's jurisdiction, the Court orders Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's motion #8 by 6/14/22 with Plaintiff's reply due 6/28/22. The Court will set a date for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint after it reviews the standing issue and determines whether there exists Article III standing in this removal action. Accordingly, the Court takes under advisement Plaintiff's motion to remand and for costs and attorneys' fees #8 and denies as moot Defendant's motion for extension of time to answer #9 . The 5/24/22 notice of motion date is stricken. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 11 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Valerie Thomas by Celetha Chatman (Chatman, Celetha) |
| Filing 10 UNOPPOSED NOTICE of Motion by Stacie Elaine Barhorst for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer #9 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 5/24/2022 at 11:00 AM. (Barhorst, Stacie) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Defendant Spring Oaks Capital, LLC for extension of time to file answer UNOPPOSED (Barhorst, Stacie) |
| Filing 8 MOTION by Plaintiff Valerie Thomas to remand Motion to Remand and For Costs and Attorneys' Fees for Improper Removal (Mccormick, Seth) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Valerie Thomas by Seth Barrow Mccormick (Mccormick, Seth) |
| Filing 6 MAILED notice of removal letter to counsel of record. (ph, ) |
| Filing 5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable John Robert Blakey for all further proceedings. Honorable Robert W. Gettleman no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 5/16/2022. (ph, ) |
| Filing 4 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Spring Oaks Capital, LLC AMENDED (Barhorst, Stacie) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Spring Oaks Capital, LLC by Stacie Elaine Barhorst (Barhorst, Stacie) |
| Filing 2 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Spring Oaks Capital, LLC (Barhorst, Stacie) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from Cook County Circuit Court - Chancery Division, case number (2021 CH 05345) filed by Spring Oaks Capital, LLC Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19462540. (CLASS ACTION) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - State Court Case File, #2 Exhibit B - Motion for Class Certification, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Barhorst, Stacie) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (ak, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (ak, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Thomas v. Spring Oaks Capital, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Valerie Thomas | |
| Represented By: | Seth Barrow Mccormick |
| Represented By: | Celetha Chatman |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Spring Oaks Capital, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Stacie Elaine Barhorst |
| Represented By: | Michael S. Poncin |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
