To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a series of decisions addressing the Article III standing of consumer plaintiffs alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The court in five opinions resolving six different appeals arising out of putative class actions revisited the Supreme Court’s decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), clarifying how an FDCPA plaintiff must allege and prove an “injury in fact” sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in a federal court.
Bluffton eatery sues over mandate | Local | The Journal Gazette journalgazette.net - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from journalgazette.net Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Thursday, December 17, 2020
On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a series of decisions addressing the Article III standing of consumer plaintiffs alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The court in five opinions resolving six different appeals arising out of putative class actions revisited the Supreme Court’s decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), clarifying how an FDCPA plaintiff must allege and prove an “injury in fact” sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in a federal court.
Two of the five opinions resulted in converting Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of complaints for failure to state a claim to Rule 12(b)(1) dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: