The consumers alleged a particularized and concrete injury: the repossession of their cars in a way that violated Pennsylvania law, Judge Harvey Bartle III wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The court rejected the consumers’ argument that their claims involved bare procedural violations of the type the U.S. Supreme Court said in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins don’t belong in federal court.
The consumers allege Capital One Auto Finance didn’t give them 15 days notice of the repossessions and didn’t send separate repossession notices to co-borrowers as required under state law.
Capital One moved the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Two years later the consumers alleged they don’t have standing in federal court and the case must be sent back to state court.
But the court said their “allegations in their own complaint belie their current belated position regarding standing.”
The consumers allege their cars were illegally repossessed, they shouldn’t have lost title to their cars, and any amounts due on their loans should be extinguished.
This case doesn’t involve “an attenuated risk of future harm or a bare violation of statute divorced from any actual injury,” the court said.
Shenkan Injury Lawyers LLC represented the consumers.
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP and Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP represented Capital One.
The case is Langer v. Capital One Auto Fin., 2019 BL 21474, E.D. Pa., No. 16-6130, 1/23/19.