Van v. LLR, Inc.

Van v. LLR, Inc.

Opinion

 [*1161]  PER CURIAM:

This case requires us to address whether the ] temporary deprivation of money gives rise to an injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing. We agree with other circuits that "[t]he inability to have and use money to which a party is entitled is a concrete injury." MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Fla., Inc., 918 F.3d 1312, 1318 (11th Cir. 2019). This is so because "[e]very day that a sum of money is wrongfully withheld, its rightful owner loses the time value of the [**3]  money." Habitat Educ. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 607 F.3d 453, 457 (7th Cir. 2010). We therefore reverse the district court's dismissal of this action for lack of standing and remand for further proceedings.

Defendants-Appellees, LLR, Inc., dba LuLaRoe, and LuLaRoe, LLC, improperly charged sales tax to customers residing in jurisdictions that do not impose such taxes.² Later, after a related lawsuit was filed, LLR refunded the charges to affected customers, but LLR did not pay interest to account for the customers' loss of use of their money. Plaintiff-Appellant, Katie Van, filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of LLR customers in Alaska who were improperly charged sales taxes. The operative complaint alleges, inter alia, that LLR failed to compensate Van and putative class members "for the full amount of their damages," including interest. The complaint asserts claims for conversion and misappropriation and for violation of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Alaska Stat. Ann. § 45.50.471.

LLR moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of Article III standing, arguing that Van could not establish an injury in fact, because LLR had fully refunded the tax charges and her claim for interest alone was insufficient to establish standing. The record shows [**4]  that Van was refunded $531.25 for sales tax charges, but Van contends that she is owed at least $3.76 in interest on that sum to account for her lost use of the money. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, albeit on a ground that LLR had not argued and that LLR does not defend on appeal-that $3.76 "is too little to support Article III standing." Van timely appealed.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.