Eisenberger v. Credit Control, LLC
| Jacob Eisenberger |
| Credit Control d/b/a Control & Collections, LLC and Credit Control, LLC doing business as Control & Collections, LLC |
| 1:2022cv06183 |
| October 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Roanne L Mann |
| Nina Morrison |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER This Court previously issued an Order to Show, directed to defendant, and gave plaintiff until December 16, 2022 to respond to defendant's written submission. See 11/22/22 Order to Show Cause. By way of clarification, plaintiff's response, which must now be docketed by December 13, 2022, must address defendant's argument (in DE #10) that plaintiff's Complaint, despite its vague assertions of harm, states a sufficiently concrete injury, traceable to the conduct at issue, so as to confer Article III standing on plaintiff and thus to support a finding of subject matter jurisdiction; in particular, plaintiff must disclose, inter alia, whether he is alleging a bare procedural violation, for which only statutory damages are sought, or whether plaintiff is seeking to recover actual damages and, if so, the nature and extent of those damages - in which case, plaintiff may need to obtain permission to file an amended pleading. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 12/5/2022. (LK)
|
| Filing 10 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Credit Control, LLC (Little, Brendan) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: On October 13, 2022, defendant removed this action from state court, brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C 1692 et seq. (the "FDCPA"). In 2021, the Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which established that a plaintiff may not have standing to sue in federal court for a statutory violation if the plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact. See 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021). Since TransUnion, courts in this District have applied that principle to the types of facts alleged here, and found that plaintiffs had not suffered injuries-in-fact and thus did not have standing to sue in federal court. See, e.g., Benhayun v. Halsted Fin. Services, LLC, 21-CV-4421 (WFK) (SIL), 2022 WL 4813538, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022); Wolkenfeld v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 22-CV-1156 (PKC) (CLP), 2022 WL 1124828, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2022) (citing cases). While complaints that do not plead an injury-in-fact under TransUnion may not be maintained in federal court because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, such cases may be brought in state court. Accordingly, on or before December 2, 2022, defendant must show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's response must be filed by December 16, 2022. The #9 Motion to Reschedule Conference is denied without prejudice. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 11/22/2022. (JP)
|
| Filing 9 Consent MOTION to Adjourn Conference /Reschedule Conference with Joint Status Report by Jacob Eisenberger. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order to Reschedule Initial Conference) (Yusko, Robert) |
| Filing 8 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (Yusko, Robert) |
| Filing 7 Letter MOTION to Adjourn Conference Unopposed from November 10, 2022 by Jacob Eisenberger. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Adjourning Initial Conference) (Yusko, Robert) |
|
ORDER granting in part and denying in part #7 Motion to Adjourn Conference. The Court reluctantly grants in part plaintiff's belated request, on consent, to adjourn Thursday's hearing, which is a settlement conference as well as an initial conference and thus the adjournment request should have been filed two weeks in advance. The November 10th proceeding is adjourned sine die. The parties are directed to continue their settlement discussions and, by November 21, 2022, to submit a joint updated status report and, if they have not reached an agreement in principle to settle, a renewed letter-motion requesting the rescheduling of the initial conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 11/7/2022. (JP)
|
| Case Reassigned to Judge Nina Morrison. Judge Ann M Donnelly no longer assigned to the case. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (AM) |
|
Filing 6
SCHEDULING ORDER: A telephonic combined initial conference/settlement conference will be held on November 10, 2022 at 11:00 a.m.; see the attached Scheduling Order for additional information concerning the initial conference. Plaintiff and a client-representative of defendant with unfettered settlement-decisionmaking authority must participate. Counsel are directed to confer to jointly fill out and docket the attached questionnaire by 2:00 p.m. on November 8, 2022. *** To dial in to the initial conference, the parties are directed to call (877) 336-1839 and type in the access code 6672833.If the parties are initially unable to connect to the call, please try again as the third-party conference call system has been overloaded at times. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 10/21/2022. (LK)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick Watts on behalf of Credit Control, LLC (aty to be noticed) (Watts, Patrick) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint by Credit Control, LLC. (Little, Brendan) |
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (PB) |
| Filing 2 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (PB) |
| This case has been opened in the Eastern District of New York. If you plan to continue representing your client(s), you must be admitted to practice before this court. You must do so by applying for Pro Hac Vice or permanent admission. To apply for Pro Hac Vice admission, you must first register for an ECF login and password. Please visit the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions for guidance. Once registered, you must electronically file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You must pay the required pro hac vice fee online. (PB) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Ann M Donnelly and Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (PB) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Credit Control d/b/a Control & Collections, LLC from Supreme Court, Kings County, case number 527702/2022. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-16033455) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (O'Brien, Sean) |
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 New York Eastern 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
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.
