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

5 Responses

  1. Posting again – because last post did not go through. FDCPA very short SOL — This is a congressional issue.

  2. FDCPA a very short SOL. By the the time one figures out – TOO LATE.. This is a congressional issue. Too busy doing nothing.

  3. FDCPA has two different outcomes between Fed and State. State Court ignores Martinez, which does not allow Plaintiff to proceed until he answers with the real Plaintiff. The State Court judges are required to follow the Rules of Decision Act when there is a discrepancy between State and Fed, but usually don’t.

    I am using it as a initial discovery in the first 30 days of the suit, as I am not under any obligation, in fact to a detriment to answer until they do. They never do and should cancel the entire fraud.

  4. Have to agree Summer

  5. They die in all Courts , thanks to Judges. Very rare Judges are willing to confront Wall Street fraud. Most Judges are zealous supporters.

    So, no matter if it State or Federal. Lawyers for Banks lie, cases die.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: