The Center and ten other organizations serving low-income consumers filed an amicus brief urging the California Court of Appeal not to import restrictive federal standing law into California’s state courts and instead to reassert California courts’ role as courts of general jurisdiction open to all litigants with a valid cause to assert.
Over the past several decades, federal courts have made it increasingly difficult for potential plaintiffs to establish that they have "standing" — that is, a right to bring a case. In a series of decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that under Article III of the United States Constitution, which limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to "cases" and "controversies," plaintiffs must show they have suffered (or are about to suffer) a "concrete and particularized injury in fact" that is caused by the defendant's allegedly unlawful action and that can be remedied by a court order. The first "concrete harm" requirement has become a particularly onerous hill to climb for many potential plaintiffs, including those with cases under federal consumer protection statutes.
The upshot of a stringent Article III standing doctrine has been a marked decrease in access to justice for plaintiffs in federal court. State courts, however, have always offered a forum for plaintiffs to litigate their disputes without having to meet the federal standing requirement. At least, until recently.
Two years ago, one California Court of Appeal purported to discover in California law a "concrete injury in fact" restriction similar to that in federal law. That decision has created significant problems for consumers trying to bring their legal claims in California courts.
The decision was relied on by the defendants in Chai v. Velocity Investments, who successfully urged the Santa Clara County Superior Court to hold that consumers may not sue debt collectors who violated the disclosure provisions of the 2013 Fair Debt Buying Practices Act unless they lose money as a result, even though the Legislature specifically mandated those disclosures and provided the remedy. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Sixth District Court of Appeal.
Our amicus brief (co-authored by Center Fellow Grace Choi '24) explains why the “standing” requirement imposed by Article III of the United States Constitution has no application to plaintiffs in California’s state courts. There is nothing in the California Constitution analogous to the federal Constitution's limitation to “cases” and “controversies”. Thus, while federal tribunals are courts of limited jurisdiction that may hear only the specified types of cases affirmatively set forth in the Constitution or federal statute, state tribunals are courts of general jurisdiction presumed to exercise authority over any dispute unless specifically prohibited by statute. Were it otherwise, many litigants would have nowhere that they could bring a case, even when the law was plainly— even purposefully — violated. Fortunately, as our brief observed, all that California courts actually require is that plaintiffs plead a valid cause of action and evince a sufficient interest in the outcome. And that’s that.