State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over claims brought under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). But apart from the merits of a FACTA claim, state and federal courts have different requirements for standing. So when a defendant removes a FACTA action from state to federal court, but the claim does not satisfy standing under Article III of the Constitution under Spokeo, courts have generally found those actions must be remanded to state court. But what about when the defendant is itself a federal agency or officer?
In a decision today, the Seventh Circuit held the same result follows. Linda Thompson sued the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AFES) in Illinois state court, alleging that AFES printed her credit card’s expiration date on receipts. AFES removed under the federal-officer removal statute, and Thompson moved tor remand. The parties agreed that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, but AFES argued that the proper remedy was therefore a dismissal of the action, and the district court agreed. The Seventh Circuit, reversed finding that the sovereign immunity waiver for FACTA claims, combined with the statute’s concurrent jurisdiction provisions, meant the case should proceed in state court against the federal defendant.
