Plaintiffs Succeed In Arguing That They Suffered No Injury!

Sometimes cases go off in directions that I simply do not expect.   In most cases, I would expect to see the plaintiff contend that it was injured in some way.  However, that was not the case in Lagrisola v. North Am. Fin. Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192140.  

A foul, but no harm?

The plaintiffs in the case obtained a home loan from the defendant, which was allegedly not licensed at the time under the California Financing Law.  Cal. Fin. Code § 22000 et seq.  The plaintiff filed suit in state court and the defendants removed it to federal court.  In seeking a remand to state court, the plaintiffs argued that they lacked standing under Article III of the U.S.  Constitution.   Article III standing requires that a plaintiff suffer a "concrete injury".  Although the plaintiffs were seeking restitution of the interest paid on their loan through California Financial Code § 22751(a) and Business and Professions Code § 17200, they analogized this to a statutory damage provision.  Relying on TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,  141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), Judge Dana M. Sabraw remanded the case to state court because availability of statutory damages alone does not satisfy the injury requirement for constitutional standing.