3:24-cv-00280
S.D.W. VaMay 7, 2025Background
- Amanda Stevens, on behalf of a class, sued Nelnet Servicing, LLC, alleging that Nelnet miscalculated her student loan payments under an income-driven repayment plan (the SAVE plan) and reported the inflated amount to credit bureaus.
- Stevens claimed the miscalculation led to credit report inaccuracies and the denial of her mortgage application, but she did not seek damages related to credit reporting harm.
- She argued Nelnet violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA) by using unfair or misleading debt collection practices.
- Nelnet responded with a motion to dismiss Count I, arguing that Stevens had not suffered a concrete injury necessary for Article III standing, as she had not made excessive payments or otherwise suffered tangible harm.
- The court addressed whether the WVCCPA claim involved a concrete injury or was more analogous to tort, rather than contract, law—critical for determining standing under recent Supreme Court guidance.
- The court granted Nelnet's motion, dismissing Count I without prejudice for lack of Article III standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing (concrete injury) | Stevens suffered a concrete injury due to breach, akin to contract law | No concrete harm; no excessive payments or tangible injury | Stevens lacked concrete injury for standing; claim dismissed |
| WVCCPA claim: Tort vs. Contract Analogy | WVCCPA claim is analogous to breach of contract, allowing nominal damages | WVCCPA claim sounds in tort, not contract; no standing | WVCCPA claim is tort-based; breach of contract analogy rejected |
| Harm Sufficiency for Statutory Violation | Statutory violation itself suffices for standing (nominal damages suffice) | Statutory violation alone insufficient; needs real harm | Statutory violation without concrete harm insufficient |
| Adequacy of Pleading Actual Damages | Claimed intangible harms (damaged credit, distress); did not seek credit damages | No facts pled supporting actual damages or resource expenditure | No actual or general damages pled; failed to plead a concrete injury |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) (clarifies Article III standing requires plaintiffs to allege a concrete injury, even for statutory violations)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (explains need for a concrete injury for standing under Article III)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes three key requirements for Article III standing: injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021) (recognizes nominal damages may satisfy the redress requirement in certain cases)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (reiterates 'personal stake' requirement for Article III standing)