Andrew Stegmeyer, et al. v. ABM Industries Incorporated, et al.

Stegmeyer v. ABM Industries · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · March 30, 2026 · No. No. 24-cv-00394

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. The court held that Plaintiffs had not pleaded a concrete injury in fact because the alleged receipt of parking-collection letters and text messages, possession and use of their personal information, and resulting emotional distress did not constitute a sufficiently concrete privacy or other injury. The dismissal was without prejudice, and Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend by April 20, 2026.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiffs did not plead a concrete injury in fact because the alleged receipt of parking-fee collection letters and two tailored text messages, possession and use of their names and home addresses to collect alleged unpaid bills, emotional distress, and incidental time and device costs did not amount to a concrete harm recognized under Article III.
  2. The alleged collection letters and text messages did not constitute an injury analogous to intrusion upon seclusion because receiving communications seeking payment of unpaid bills is not highly offensive to a reasonable person on the facts alleged.
  3. The Rule 12(b)(1) motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead Article III standing.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded a concrete injury in fact sufficient to establish Article III standing for their Driver’s Privacy Protection Act claims.
  2. Whether the alleged receipt of unwanted parking-fee collection letters and text messages, disclosure and use of names and home addresses, emotional distress, and related time and device costs constituted an injury analogous to the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
  3. Whether the complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (17)

  • Boldt v. Jaddou, 652 F. Supp. 3d 937, 939 (N.D. Ill. 2023)(followed)
  • Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169, 173-74 (7th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Bueno v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2024 WL 4378526, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2024)(followed)
  • Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440, 443-44 (7th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Scanlan v. Eisenberg, 669 F.3d 838, 841 (7th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Pucillo v. National Credit System, Inc., 66 F.4th 634, 637-41 (7th Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338, 340 (2016)(followed)
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)(followed)
  • Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 29 F.4th 934, 938 (7th Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Simic v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2017)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…