Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

In an attempt to avert the foreclosure of her home, Plaintiff sought to modify the terms of her mortgage pursuant to the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a federal initiative that incentivizes lenders and loan servicers to offer loan modifications to eligible homeowners. When Plaintiff's efforts did not result in a permanent loan modification, she sued Wells Fargo Bank and American Home Mortgage Servicing, alleging that their conduct during her attempts to modify her mortgage violated Massachusetts law. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeal (1) affirmed the district court's judgment as to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (2) vacated the dismissal of Plaintiff's other breach of contract claim, Plaintiff's unfair debt collection practices claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and her derivative claim for equitable relief. Remanded. View "Young v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2010, the New Bedford district court entered a default judgment against Plaintiff, a resident of New Bedford, Massachusetts and an employee of the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department), in a suit filed by Law Firm to recover a consumer debt. In 2011, Law Firm brought a second suit in Attleboro district court seeking to collect on the default judgment by attaching Plaintiff's wages from the Department, via trustee process. Attleboro was one of the locations in which the Department maintained a usual place of business. In 2010, Plaintiff filed this action alleging that Law Firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act venue provision when it brought the 2011 Attleboro suit in a district other than the one in which she resided or signed the underlying contract. The district court granted Law Firm's motion to dismiss. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's claim was baseless in that it ignored Massachusetts trustee process law. View "Smith v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C." on Justia Law

Relator brought a federal False Claims Act (FCA) suit against Millennium Laboratories of California (Millennium) and several physicians, alleging that Millennium encouraged physicians to bill the government multiple times for single drug tests and to perform excessive, medically unnecessary original and confirmation tests. Prior to the filing of the complaint, Millennium filed a suit against Relator's employer, Calloway Laboratories (Calloway), in California state court. Millennium attached emails from from Calloway employees to third parties suggesting fraudulent activity in Millennium's billing practices. The district court dismissed Relator's complaint, finding that the prior disclosure constituted a jurisdictional bar to Relator's suit. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the court erred in dismissing all of Relator's claims when only some of them had been disclosed by way of being substantially similar to the information contained in Millennium's prior California suit. Remanded for the district court's consideration of whether Relator's remaining FCA claim was sufficiently pled. View "United States ex rel. Estate of Cunningham v. Millennium Labs. of Cal., Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal by Harden Manufacturing Corporation and others (together, Harden plaintiffs) arose from multidistrict litigation concerning the off-label marketing of Neurontin, an anticonvulsant drug manufactured by Pfizer, Inc. The Harden plaintiffs, representing a putative class of third-party payors (TPPs), alleged that Pfizer engaged in a fraudulent off-marketing campaign that caused the TPPs to pay for Neurontin prescriptions that were ineffective for the off-label conditions at issue and that the plaintiffs suffered injury when they paid for those prescriptions. The district court granted summary judgment to Pfizer and denied class certification on the plaintiffs' claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and state common law claims of fraud and unjust enrichment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the plaintiffs' RICO claim, as the Harden plaintiffs presented evidence to survive summary judgment; (2) vacated the grant of summary judgment as to the state law claims; and (3) vacated the denial of class certification. View "Harden Mfg. Corp. v. Pfizer, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Massachusetts residents, bought a three-dwelling in Massachusetts, financing the entire purchase price with two mortgage loans from Plaza Home Mortgage (Plaza). After the collapse of the housing market, Plaintiffs sued Plaza, alleging state common law and statutory violations in making the loans. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs' claim based on Plaza's alleged violation of the Massachusetts covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (2) Plaintiffs' claim based on a violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection was correctly dismissed as time-barred. View "Latson v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against two entities she claimed illegally foreclosed her home once she defaulted on her mortgage payments. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court then addressed Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, finding that an amendment would be futile. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding (1) the complaint stated plausible claims for relief, and therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint in its entirety; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in deciding that it would be futile to allow an amendment to the complaint. View "Juarez v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was severely injured in a workplace accident and sued Trail King, the custom manufacturer of the trailer involved in the accident. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury's finding that Defendant had not been negligent nor in breach of any warranty. In the trial court in that diversity case, Plaintiffs belatedly attempted to amend their complaint to add another claim, one under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A for unfair and deceptive trade practices. The trial judge denied the motion, finding the effort to amend untimely. Plaintiffs did not appeal this denial in their earlier appeal. This case concerned whether Plaintiffs may now maintain an independent suit for the ch. 93A claims against Trail King. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding that the doctrine of claim preclusion applied. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that ch. 93A, 9(8) provides an exception to the normal rules of res judicata. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that under the facts of this case, Plaintiffs may not now bring this ch. 93A claim because of the failure to appeal from the denial of the motion to amend. View "Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a resident of Massachusetts, challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing claims she brought in November 2009 against the Cadle Company and its corporate sibling CadleRock Joint Venture II for unlawful debt collection under Massachusetts law. In November 2005 Plaintiff entered into a settlement with Defendants and furnished a release. Because the release was valid, at issue was whether, given the release of past claims, anything that occurred in or after November 2005 restored or gave rise to a claim by Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that because Plaintiff was essentially attacking Defendants' pre-release conduct in the present lawsuit, Plaintiff's claims, which ultimately depended on the wrongfulness of the original debt collection efforts, were without merit. View "Pilalas v. The Cadle Co." on Justia Law

In a suit alleging engine defects in Volkswagen and Audi vehicles, the district court awarded $30 million in attorneys' fees to several groups of plaintiffs' attorneys who achieved a class action settlement agreement. The award was based in federal law. The First Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded for calculation using Massachusetts law. In a diversity suit, where the settlement agreement expressly states that the parties have not agreed on the source of law to apply to the fee award and there is an agreement that the defendants will pay reasonable fees, state law governs the fee award. View "Volkswagen Grp of Am. v. McNulty Law Firm" on Justia Law

Defendant sells brokerage and investment products and services, typically to registered broker-dealers and investment advisers that trade securities for clients. One of its services, NetExchange Pro, an interface for research and managing brokerage accounts via the Internet, can be used for remote access to market dynamics and customer accounts. A firm may make its clients' personal information, including social security numbers and taxpayer identification numbers, accessible to end-users in NetExchange Pro. Some of defendant's employees also have access to this information. Plaintiff, a brokerage customer with NPC, which made its customer account information accessible in NetExchange Pro, received notice of the company's policy and filed a putative class action, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied contract, negligent breach of contractual duties, and violations of Massachusetts consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed. Despite "dire forebodings" about access to personal information, plaintiff failed to state any contractual claim for relief and lacks constitutional standing to assert a violation of any arguably applicable consumer protection law. View "Katz v. Pershing, LLC" on Justia Law