Britton v. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc.
Plaintiff: Kadeshia Britton
Defendant: Sunrise Credit Services, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2024cv03492
Filed: May 13, 2024
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Hector Gonzalez
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 14, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 14, 2024 Filing 3 Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this 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. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (LJ)
May 14, 2024 Filing 2 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (LJ)
May 14, 2024 Opinion or Order ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sent her SMS messages that caused her damages "in the form of anxiety, decreased ability to focus on tasks while at work, frustration, among other negative emotions, as well as suffering from unjustified abusive intrusion upon seclusion." See ECF No. #1 8-15.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. 594 U.S. 413, 426-27 (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."). Since TransUnion, courts in this Circuit 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., Nojovits v. Ceteris Portfolio Servs., LLC, No. 22-cv-2833, 2022 WL 2047179, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 7, 2022) (finding no standing where plaintiff alleged "fear, anxiety, stress, increased heartrate, and difficulty with sleep" from receiving a debt collection letter); Kola v. Forster & Garbus LLP, No. 19-cv-10496, 2021 WL 4135153, at *1, 7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2021) (explaining that merely receiving a misleading or confusing letter under the FDCPA does not establish an injury-in-fact). Such cases may, however, be brought in state courts, which have jurisdiction to enforce the FDCPA and are not bound by the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III of the Constitution. See Cavazzini v. MRS Assocs., 574 F. Supp. 3d 134, 145 (E.D.N.Y. 2021).In light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion, the Court directs Plaintiff to file a letter showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing on or before May 21, 2024. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 5/14/2024. (PN)
May 14, 2024 Case Assigned to Judge Hector Gonzalez. 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. (LJ)
May 13, 2024 Filing 1 COMPLAINT Kadeshia Britton against Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. filing fee $ 405, receipt number ANYEDC-17868294 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO,, filed by Kadeshia Britton. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons Summons, #2 Civil Cover Sheet civil cover sheet) (Elo, Elliot) Modified on 5/14/2024 (LJ).

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 this case: Britton v. Sunrise Credit 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: Kadeshia Britton
Represented By: Elliot Elo
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: Sunrise Credit Services, Inc.
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.


Why Is My Information Online?