BENTON – U. S. District Judge Staci Yandle must decide whether to dismiss a class action privacy invasion claim against Exchange stores on military bases or remand it to Madison County where it started.
Plaintiff Linda Thompson of Godfrey and the United States agree that Yandle can’t keep it in her court.
Thompson concedes she suffered no concrete injury, which means Yandle would lack jurisdiction and a Madison County judge wouldn’t.
Roy Dripps of Maryville filed Thompson’s complaint in October.
He identified her as a retired chief radio operator who purchased items with a credit card at the Exchange on Scott Air Force base.
He claimed all Exchanges violated federal law requiring them to mask expiration dates of credit and debit cards on receipts.
Dripps claimed the violations increased the risk of identity theft and breached the confidence of customers in safe handling of their information.
He added that it would have been simple for Exchanges to program their systems to print receipts that didn’t display expiration dates.
Dripps proposed to certify a class of individuals in the U. S. and its territories whose expiration dates appeared on debit or credit card receipts at Exchanges.
He claimed there were at least tens of thousands of persons in the class.
He proposed a class period starting in October 2020 and ending on the date of class certification.
Dripps listed Scott Owens of Florida and Chicago lawyers Keith Keogh, Michael Hilicki, and William Sweetnam as associates.
Taylor Pitz of the justice department in Washington removed the complaint to district court on Dec. 2 on behalf of U. S. Attorney Rachelle Crowe.
He claimed federal law authorizes the U. S. to remove actions from state courts.
Sweetnam moved to remand on Dec. 22, citing a Seventh Circuit decision that the same allegations didn’t satisfy requirements for standing in federal court.
That decision required a plaintiff asserting a violation of statutory rights to allege that concrete harm resulted.
Sweetnam claimed the only reason Thompson chose a state court was that the Seventh Circuit forced her to do so.
He claimed Thompson didn’t seek to enforce any state law against the U. S. or impose state law liability on it.
Pitz moved to dismiss on Jan. 3, claiming remand was unquestionably wrong.
“That would lead to the entirely incorrect outcome whereby a claim against an entity of the federal government for an alleged violation of federal statutory law must be litigated in a state court,” he wrote.
“She has not had her identity stolen nor has she demonstrated that this violation makes her particularly susceptible to identity theft or any other harm,” he added.
Pitz claimed Exchanges provide quality merchandise at low prices primarily to military personnel.
He claimed they generate reasonable earnings to supplement appropriations for morale, welfare, and recreation programs of Army and Air Force.
“To independently determine whether a plaintiff’s injury is concrete, courts consider whether the injury actually exists and whether it is real and not abstract,” he wrote.
Pitz claimed an injury must be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, or at the very least certainly impending.
He claimed any risk to Thompson remained entirely speculative and hypothetical.
Pitz claimed Congress intended to provide federal officers and agencies with the protections of a federal forum.
He added that the purpose of Congress was “to ensure that state courts lack the authority to hold federal officers criminally or civilly liable for acts performed in the execution of their duties.”
He claimed none of the cases Thompson cited where courts remanded substantially similar cases was brought against federal agencies.