Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), established that an alleged violation of a statutory right, standing alone, does not necessarily confer Article III standing to bring a claim in federal court. Reaction to the decision continues to evolve. In the latest case from the Eleventh Circuit, the court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the plaintiff alleged that his mortgage bank failed to file a certificate of satisfaction of the mortgage within the time allowed by New York law, but the complaint included no allegation that the plaintiff had been harmed by the tardy filing or even that he had been aware of the delay until after the satisfaction was filed. Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 839 F.3d 998 (11th Cir. 2016).
The New York law at issue required CitiMortgage to file the certificate of satisfaction within 30 days after the obligation was satisfied. But CitiMortgage failed to file the certificate until more than 90 days had elapsed. After that, Nicklaw learned that the filing had been late and filed a putative class action against the bank, alleging that the bank violated the New York law and that he was entitled to statutory damages for the violation. But Nicklaw’s complaint did not allege that he or any other member of the putative class was aware of the tardy filing, or suffered any harm because of it. After the case was transferred from the Eastern District of Missouri to the Southern District of Florida, the district court dismissed the case based on prior litigation between the parties. Nickshaw appealed, and the bank moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In a decision written by Judge William Pryor, the Eleventh Circuit granted the motion. Applying Spokeo’s holding that “a plaintiff does not ‘automatically satisf[y] the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right,’” the court held that “Nicklaw alleges neither a harm nor a material risk of harm that the district court could remedy. His complaint does not allege that he lost money because CitiMortgage failed to file the certificate. It does not allege that his credit suffered. It does not even allege that he or anyone else was aware that the certificate of discharge had not been recorded during the relevant time period. And Nicklaw did not file this action until more than two years after CitiMortgage recorded the satisfaction of mortgage. Nicklaw fails to allege even a material risk of harm at this late date.” The court noted that Nicklaw might have an actionable claim in a New York court, but he failed to allege an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing in federal court.
Last July, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Eleventh Circuit rejected a Spokeo-based challenge in an FDCPA case alleging a failure to provide required disclosures. Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., ___ Fed. App’x ___, 2016 WL 3611543 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016). The Church panel analogized the case before it to the standing inquiry in Fair Housing Act “tester” cases: “Just as the tester-plaintiff had alleged injury to her statutorily-created right to truthful housing information, so too has Church alleged injury to her statutorily-created right to information pursuant to the FDCPA.” Several subsequent district court decisions around the country have followed Church’s reasoning, e.g., Quinn v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2016 WL 4264967 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2016); Sayles v. Advanced Recovery Sys., Inc., ___ F. Supp. 3d ____, 2016 WL 4522822 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 26, 2016), appeal docketed, No. 16-60640 (5th Cir. Sept. 23, 2016); Irvine v. I.C. Sys., Inc., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2016 WL 4196812 (D. Colo. July 29, 2016), but at least two have rejected it, Nokchan v. Lyft, Inc., 2016 WL 5815287 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2016); Dolan v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 2016 WL 4099109 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2016).
Posted by Valerie Sanders.