Kathryn Collier v. SP Plus Corporation
889 F.3d 894
7th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Collier and Seitz sued SP Plus in Cook County, alleging willful FACTA violations for printing card expiration dates on parking receipts and seeking statutory and unspecified "actual damages."
- The complaint did not allege concrete harms such as fraud or identity theft—only that receipts displayed expiration dates.
- SP Plus removed to federal court under § 1441, asserting federal-question jurisdiction because the claim arises under FACTA; it then moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing removal was improper and that lack of Article III standing did not prevent the case from remaining in state court.
- The district court denied remand, found plaintiffs lacked Article III standing under Spokeo and Seventh Circuit precedent, granted leave to amend, and ultimately dismissed with prejudice when plaintiffs did not amend.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit held the case was not removable because Article III standing was absent at removal; it vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to return the case to state court, declining to award fees to plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction after removal | Lack of Article III standing does not prevent state-court suit; remand required if defendant failed to prove jurisdiction | SP Plus contends removal was proper because claim arises under federal law and defendant may challenge standing in federal court | Court held removal was improper because defendant, as removing party, had to show Article III standing existed at removal; no standing -> remand required |
| Whether plaintiffs alleged Article III injury-in-fact from FACTA violation | Plaintiffs relied on statutory violation and a general prayer for "actual damages" as sufficient | SP Plus argued plaintiffs failed to plead a concrete or imminent injury as required by Spokeo | Court held plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury or appreciable risk beyond statutory violation; no Article III standing was shown |
| Proper remedy when federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argued return to state court under § 1447(c) | SP Plus urged dismissal in federal court for lack of jurisdiction | Court held § 1447(c) requires remand to state court rather than dismissal; dismissal with prejudice was improper |
| Whether appellate court should award fees under § 1447(c) | Plaintiffs sought fees for improper removal | SP Plus justified removal strategy; court criticized waste but disputed basis for fees | Court declined to award fees because plaintiffs’ brief did not adequately develop the request |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires party invoking federal jurisdiction to establish injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (concrete and particularized injury required for Article III standing)
- Walker v. Trailer Transit, Inc., 727 F.3d 819 (defendant may remove within 30 days when case becomes removable; later-filed pleadings can permit removal)
- Meyers v. Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC, 843 F.3d 724 (applying Spokeo to FACTA claims in Seventh Circuit)
- Diedrich v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 839 F.3d 583 (plausible factual allegations of injury required to survive Rule 12(b)(1))
- Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437 (jurisdictional dismissal cannot be with prejudice)
- McIntyre v. Fallahay, 766 F.3d 1078 (remand rather than dismissal when case does not belong in federal court)