Klein v. Network Recovery Services, Inc.
| Miriam Klein |
| Network Recovery Services, Inc. |
| 1:2023cv03119 |
| April 25, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Marcia M Henry |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER of Remand to State Court: the Court, having considered the parties' [12,13] responses to its 5/4/2023 Order to Show Cause as to why this case should not be remanded for lack of standing, finds that Defendant has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff alleges an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing pursuant to TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). This case is therefore remanded to state court because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to remand this entire action to the Supreme Court, County of Kings, under docket number 508641/2023, and terminate this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 5/30/2023. (SK)
|
| Filing 14 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Miriam Klein (Cader, Jonathan) |
|
ORDER granting Defendant's #13 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer until after the Court rules on the pending Show Cause briefing. Defendant must answer within 30 days of the Court's decision to either retain jurisdiction or remand the case to state court. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 5/23/2023. (SK)
|
| Filing 13 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Until After a Ruling on The Order to Show Cause to Remand This Action to State Court by Network Recovery Services, Inc.. (Medley, Lori) |
| Filing 12 Letter response to Order to Show Cause by Network Recovery Services, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Unpublished decision, Lodhi v. JHPDE Finance) (Pope, John) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sent him misleading collections letters regarding a debt that he says he did not owe, which deprived him of "the right to be free from deceptive and/or misleading communications from Defendant." (See Dkt. 1, pars. 57-66, 76.)Before 2021, the Second Circuit explained that "an alleged violation of [the FDCPA] satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III." Cohen v. Rosicki, Rosicki & Assocs., P.C., 897 F.3d 75, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2018). In 2021, however, the Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, clarifying that, even where a defendant violates a statute such as the FDCPA, the plaintiff has not necessarily suffered an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing. 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021) ("[A]n important difference exists between (i) a plaintiff's statutory cause of action to sue a defendant over the defendant's violation of federal law, and (ii) a plaintiff's suffering concrete harm because of the defendant's violation of federal law."). In light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion, the Court directs Defendants to file a letter showing cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of standing on or before May 18th, 2023. Should Defendants file a letter, Plaintiff shall file a response on or before May 25th, 2023. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 5/4/2023. (SK)
|
| Filing 11 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (SR) |
| Filing 10 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. (SR) |
| 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. (SR) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen and Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry. 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. (SR) |
| Filing 9 STIPULATION re #1 Notice of Removal, by Network Recovery Services, Inc. (Medley, Lori) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Craig B. Sanders on behalf of Miriam Klein (aty to be noticed) (Sanders, Craig) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Mark Cader on behalf of Miriam Klein (aty to be noticed) (Cader, Jonathan) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by John Houston Pope on behalf of Network Recovery Services, Inc. (aty to be noticed) (Pope, John) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by James S. Frank on behalf of Network Recovery Services, Inc. (aty to be noticed) (Frank, James) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Lori A Medley on behalf of Network Recovery Services, Inc. (notification declined or already on case) (Medley, Lori) |
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Network Recovery Services, Inc. (Medley, Lori) |
| Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet.. Re #1 Notice of Removal, by Network Recovery Services, Inc. (Medley, Lori) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Network Recovery Services, Inc. from Supreme Court, County of Kings, case number 508641/2023. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-16632039) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - Affidavit of Service, #3 Exhibit C - Notices of Appearance) (Medley, Lori) |
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
| Search for this case: Klein v. Network Recovery Services, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Miriam Klein | |
| Represented By: | Craig B. Sanders |
| Represented By: | Jonathan Mark Cader |
| 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: Network Recovery Services, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | James S. Frank |
| Represented By: | John Houston Pope |
| Represented By: | Lori A Medley |
| 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.
