Kurtis v. Equifax Information Services LLC
4:25-cv-00008
| N.D. Ind. | Jul 18, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Mercedes Kurtis filed claims in Indiana state court against Equifax and others, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on errors in her credit file.
- Defendant Equifax removed the case to federal court, but the initial claims for non-emotional damages were dropped, leaving only emotional distress claims.
- The first federal court held that emotional distress alone did not constitute a concrete injury for Article III standing, and remanded to state court.
- In February 2025, Equifax again removed the case to federal court, arguing that plaintiff now alleged physical manifestations of injury sufficient for standing.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, contending no new basis for federal jurisdiction existed, and that the removal was a tactic to avoid imminent state court trial proceedings.
- The court held oral arguments on July 16, 2025, and now issues a decision on the remand motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing—injury | Kurtis argues her claims do not rise above emotional distress, which is insufficient for standing | Equifax argues new "physical manifestations" are alleged, constituting concrete injury | Emotional distress with identified "manifestations" does not confer standing |
| Right to second removal | Kurtis contends facts have not materially changed since previous remand; removal is forum gaming | Equifax claims plaintiff's state briefings introduced new injuries supporting federal jurisdiction | No new injuries sufficient for jurisdiction; remand granted |
| Nature of the claimed injuries | Kurtis asserts all claimed injuries are emotional, not physical or financial | Equifax interprets plaintiff's conduct and responses as physical symptoms | Court finds no sufficient physical injury alleged |
| Whether to remand | Kurtis seeks remand for lack of jurisdiction | Equifax opposes, asserting proper federal jurisdiction | Remand ordered to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (emphasizing concreteness requirement for Article III standing)
- Casillas v. Madison Ave. Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (procedural FCRA violations without concrete injury do not confer standing)
- Wadsworth v. Kross, Lieberman & Stone, Inc., 12 F.4th 665 (Seventh Circuit: emotional distress not a concrete injury for standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (defining Article III standing requirements)