Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Brown owed student loan debt, which he alleges Van Ru Credit was retained to collect. A Van Ru employee left a voicemail at Brown’s business that stated the caller’s and Van Ru’s names, a return number, and a reference number. The caller asked that someone from the business’s payroll department return her call. Brown sued Van Ru for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b), alleging that the voicemail was a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” with a third party . The district court granted Van Ru judgment on the pleadings. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The voicemail left at Brown’s business was not a “communication” as defined in the Act. A communication must “convey[] . . . information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium,” and the voicemail message did not convey such information. View "Brown v. Van Ru Credit Corp." on Justia Law

Leyse filed suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, after receiving a prerecorded telemarketing call on the landline he shares with his roommate. Leyse was not the intended recipient of the call— his roommate was. The district court dismissed for lack of statutory standing. The Third Circuit reversed, concluding that Leyse has statutory standing. His status as a regular user of the phone line and occupant of the residence that was called brings him within the language of the Act and the zone of interests it protects. View "Leyse v. Bank of America NA" on Justia Law

Defendant was a Michigan-based company that “assists corporations in complying with regulations associated with the conduct of corporate business by supplying annual corporate consent documents” by way of direct mail. Defendant mailed solicitations to potential customers. Its New Hampshire mailing address was “a private mailbox used as a clearinghouse to receive and bundle orders from New Hampshire customers.” According to defendant, as a result of these direct mailings, it made sales in New Hampshire totaling $12,625. A grand jury indicted defendant on 27 felony violations of the Consumer Protection Act, encompassing three sets of nine charges, all stemming from defendant’s allegedly deceptive use of the New Hampshire mailing address in 2013. The State appealed a Superior Court order dismissing the 27 indictments, ruling that the indictments were defective because they alleged that the defendant acted with the mental state of “knowingly,” and not “purposely.” Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "New Hampshire v. Mandatory Poster Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, a Delaware limited liability company, made short-term, high-interest payday loans to Minnesota residents over the Internet. Integrity conceded that its payday loans did not comply with several provisions of Minnesota’s payday-lending law. In 2011, the Minnesota Attorney General sued Integrity, alleging that it had violated Minnesota’s payday-lending law. Integrity counterclaimed by requesting a declaratory judgment that Minnesota’s payday-lending law was unconstitutional under the extraterritoriality principle of the Commerce Clause, which prohibits a state from regulating commerce that occurs wholly outside the state. The district court granted summary judgment to the State. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Minnesota’s payday-lending law does not violate the Commerce Clause. View "State v. Integrity Advance, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she was the victim of an identity theft scheme perpetrated by employees of Chase, and seeks to hold Chase liable for this identity theft under the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. 380-1, 380-s. At issue was whether plaintiff's suit is preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. The court held that 15 U.S.C. 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts only those claims that concern a defendant’s responsibilities as a furnisher of information under the FCRA. The court concluded that, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the complaint advances claims against Chase for identity theft under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. 380‐l and 380‐s based on acts of identity theft perpetrated by Chase employees, as distinct from any erroneous or otherwise wrongful actions by Chase in furnishing information to consumer reporting agencies. These identity theft claims are not preempted because they do not concern Chase’s responsibilities as a furnisher. The court further concluded that, to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief based on Chase’s erroneous or otherwise improper furnishing of information to consumer reporting agencies, those claims are preempted. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Galper v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Forquest Ventures was formed to operate a placer mining enterprise in Helena, Montana. Ken Hagman relied on purported assay reports of the site allegedly performed by Advanced Analytical before incorporating Forquest. Following incorporation, Forquest sold or issued stock to investors, including Investors. Because there was little precious metal content at the site, Forquest realized no profits and Investors received no return on their investments. Emilio and Candice Garza, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Forquest investors, sued. The Garzas then filed an amended complaint adding the other Investors as named plaintiffs. Forquest filed a third-party complaint against Advanced Analytical. The district court granted summary judgment to Investors on their Montana Securities Act (Act) claims and granted Advanced Analytical’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly determined that Investors timely asserted their claims under the Act; (2) did not err in determining that the non-Garza Investors’ claims relate back to the original complaint’s filing date; (3) correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding Forquest’s failure to use reasonable care in the sale of securities to Investors; but (4) erred in dismissing Advanced Analytical for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Garza v. Forquest Ventures, Inc." on Justia Law

Brown filed a class action complaint, alleging that she contacted Defender by telephone in response to its advertisement for a home security system; that, during several calls, she provided Defender with personal information; and that Defender recorded those calls without her permission and without notifying her of the recording. Brown claimed violations of California Penal Code 632, which prohibits the recording of confidential telephone communications without the consent of all parties. Defender owned a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by First Mercury, covering “personal injury” and “advertising injury.” In a separate definitions section, the policy defined both “advertising injuries” and “personal injuries” as those “arising out of … [o]ral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.” The parties eventually reached a settlement. Defender provided First Mercury with timely notice of the Brown suit. First Mercury denied coverage and refused to defend. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Defender’s suit against First Mercury. Defender’s Policy requires “publication,” which was neither alleged nor proven. View "Defender Sec. Co. v. First Mercury Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The state filed a complaint, alleging that letters mailed by MPHJ to Vermont businesses informing them that they may be infringing certain patents were deceptive and violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. 2451. MPHJ is a non-practicing entity incorporated in Delaware that acts through shell corporations incorporated in many states. MPHJ removed the case twice to federal court, once under the original complaint and once under an amended complaint. The district court remanded the case to state court both times. The Federal Circuit affirmed. While 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(2), provides jurisdiction “in any civil action arising under, or in any civil action in which a party has asserted a compulsory counterclaim arising under, any Act of Congress relating to patents,” the patents at issue were transferred to MPHJ from the original patent owner; they were not directly “derived from a federal officer.” The complaint neither alleged violation of nor sought relief under the Vermont Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act so there is no risk that the state court action can affect the validity of federal law. View "Vermont v. MPHJ Tech. Inv., LLC" on Justia Law

Fecteau Residential Homes, Inc. (seller) was in the business of selling manufactured modular homes. In early November of 2010, Janet and Mark McKinstry (buyers) entered into a written contract with seller for the purchase of a demonstrator modular home on seller's lot. Buyers tendered a $5000 deposit toward the purchase price, obtained financing, and engaged a contractor to lay the necessary footings and foundation for the home. Shortly thereafter, however, seller's owner Vic Fecteau called buyers to offer them a new, identical modular home at the same price instead of the demonstrator model for which they had contracted for reasons related to financial difficulties in obtaining a replacement floor model from that particular manufacturer. Buyers rejected the offer, the parties argued, and Fecteau cancelled the deal and subsequently returned the $5000 deposit. Buyers purchased a slightly larger modular home from a different dealer, which required modifications to the partially completed foundation to install. Buyers then filed this action under the Consumer Protection Act, alleging that seller misrepresented its intention to sell them the demonstrator model for which they had contracted; that they relied to their detriment on the misrepresentation, in part by paying for a foundation "to meet the dimensions of the home sold to them by [seller]"; and that they incurred additional expenses when forced to install a different model. Buyers sought damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Seller moved for summary judgment, asserting that buyers had failed to establish an essential element of consumer fraud by showing a misrepresentation or omission of material fact at the time of contracting, failed to establish that they were "consumers" within the meaning of the Act, and failed to mitigate their damages. The trial court denied the motion. Following a two-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of buyers, finding that there consumer fraud, and awarded $1,000 in damages. Seller moved to offset any attorney's fee award by the $5000 deposit refunded to buyers in order to a "preclude double recovery" under the Act. The trial court found, "Given the minimal recovery, the fact that recovery was questionable from the start, and the lack of any public purpose served by this case," a reasonable fee award for recovery was $15,000. The court granted buyers' request for costs for a total of $1360. Turning to the $5000 offset, the court concluded that, under the Act, buyers were not entitled to both a return of their consideration and an award of damages, and determined that "the $5000 will be treated as a credit toward the attorney's fees." Seller subsequently moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to overturn the entire judgment. Buyers opposed the motion, and also moved for reconsideration of the attorney's fee award, asserting that the $5000 offset was improper. The Supreme Court found that the evidence was sufficient to find a misrepresentation or omission of material fact, and that the return of the deposit had nothing to do with buyers' claim that seller violated the Act. It found no basis for the $5000 set-off against attorney's fees ordered by the trial court. The $1000 damage award was affirmed. The attorney's fee award was modified to eliminate the $5000 set off, resulting in a total judgment of $17,360. View "McKinstry v. Fecteau Residential Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his claims against Staples for breach of contract and for violations of New York General Business Law (N.Y. G.B.L.) Sections 349 and 350 for failure to state a claim. Sections 349 and 350 prohibit deception of consumers and false advertising. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the district court erred in finding that the language of the Protection Plan Brochure (the Contract) that plaintiff purchased for his computer was unambiguous. The court concluded that plaintiff has adequately alleged both a materially misleading practice and an actual injury under N.Y. GBL Sections 349 and 350; with respect to the breach of contract claim, the district court erred in finding the Contract to be unambiguous, in requiring plaintiff to allege a “material” breach, and in finding that plaintiff had failed to adequately allege damages; construing the contract’s ambiguities in plaintiff’s favor, he has alleged Staples’s failure to perform in the first year of the contract and damages in the amount of his restitution interest; and should plaintiff seek damages beyond his restitution interest, he should amend his complaint. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions. View "Orlander v. Staples, Inc." on Justia Law