Interesting SCOTUS Decision May Prevent Removal of Certain Lawsuits to Federal Court Where They Normally Die

The full impact of this decision may not be known for years. But the immediate impact is that it gives homeowners a chance to move for remand back down to state court after attempted removal to Federal Court. Unless clarified later, which does not seem likely, this decision could mean that the Supreme Court of the United States says that Federal Courts have no jurisdiciton to hear statutory claims that can be filed in state courts. Here is the bonus: most statutory claims that can be filed under FDCPA, FRCA, RESPA, TILA etc can be filed in state court.

Specfically this means that if no actual damages are alleged (i.e., only statutory damages are claimed) then the Federal Court has no jurisidicition. So the court in attempting to minimize actions by consumers who are victims of illegal collection activities merely diverted them to state courts.

One of the interesting subissues is that these statutes may contain provisions (FRCA) for the judge, in his/her discretion to award punitive damages and this seems likely for class actions to rise rather than fall as seems to be intended by SCOTUS. Withte higher prospect of obtaining attorney fee awards and punitive damages this might make the cases more interesting.

see https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/scotus-deals-blow-to-federal-court-7203875/

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

Tags: FDCPA, Federal jurisdicition, FRCA, RESPA, state court jurisdiction on Federal claims, TILA
Posted in Uncategorized |