Resources

"Inconsistency in the Courts"

May 2017
DS News

Los Angeles-based attorneys Luke Sosnicki and Madeleine Lee, both in the firm’s Financial Services Litigation practice, co-authored the article “Inconsistency in The Courts,” which appears in DS News.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Spokeo vs. Robins which ruled that alleging a bare violation of a statue will no longer establish Article III standing, meaning the plaintiff will still need to prove specific and concrete harm in order to bring an action to federal court. Since the Supreme Court did not give specific guidelines to what “concrete” harm may be, there have been some contrasting results and inconsistencies within federal courts applying the Spokeo ruling. Specifically, the article highlights how Spokeo was applied differently in two statues related to mortgage loan services, FDCPA claims and RESPA claims. On one hand, the court held that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing in order to pursue claims against RESPA, while the court ruled the opposite for the claims against FDCPA and gave the plaintiff standing to sue.

The full article may be read here.