Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

After Plaintiff bought a parcel of property from Fauber Enterprises, Inc., the basement of the house flooded when it rained. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Fauber, Fauber’s real estate agent, and others, alleging violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing that the instructions given on the standard of proof were incorrect. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a plaintiff must prove a violation of the VCPA by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred by concluding that Plaintiff was required to prove her VCPA claims by clear and convincing evidence. Remanded. View "Ballagh v. Fauber Enters." on Justia Law

Justin Leber and Katherine Neumann (collectively, Leber) sued DKD of Davis, Inc. and General Motors Company (not a party on appeal) under California's "lemon law" after buying a Silverado truck with an allegedly defective transmission. Leber alleged the Silverado was “a new motor vehicle,” and DKD and General Motors issued an ""express warranty.'" The Silverado had a defect, despite a reasonable number of repairs, and was not fit for ordinary purposes, but neither defendant replaced it or offered restitution. DKD denied the allegations, arguing Leber did not state a claim under the Act, no warranty was given, and the Silverado was sold "as is." DKD presented evidence the truck had previously been sold to another buyer, who traded it in nearly a year later. During the sale at issue here, Leber signed various documents, including a “Buyers Guide” which states the Silverado was bought “used,” “AS IS-NO WARRANTY,” and with over 10,000 miles on it. Leber opposed DKD’s motion with a combination of legal arguments and facts regarding a warranty by General Motors. Leber also proffered several opposing facts, including that the General Motors warranty was transferrable to subsequent owners, and General Motors had paid for the unsuccessful attempts to fix the alleged defect. The trial court sustained objections to some of Leber’s evidence including evidence showing how other dealers filled out the Buyers Guide to account for the transfer of a manufacturer’s warranty. Leber appealed when the trial court granted DKD's motion for summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Leber v. DKD of Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Kennedy, alleging that Kennedy’s attempts to collect a debt from plaintiffs violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. The district court dismissed the amended complaint. The court concluded that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Kennedy where Kennedy's three purposeful contacts with New York meet the minimum contacts test; Kennedy can easily defend itself in New York; New York has a manifest interest in the suit; and plaintiffs have an interest in adjudicating their case in the state where they reside. In regards to the FDCPA claim, the court concluded that plaintiffs’ alleged obligation to pay the $8,000 balance exists only because of the exchange of nursing home services for money and accordingly constitutes a debt under the FDCPA. However, plaintiffs have failed to allege that Kennedy's debt collection activities are actionable under the FDCPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices" on Justia Law

In May 2006, Sparkle Hill, Inc. and its vice president and owner (collectively, Sparkle Hill), received an unsolicited advertisement on Sparkle Hill’s fax machine from Interstate Mat Corporation (Interstate). Nearly five years later, Sparkle Hill filed suit in federal district court individually and on behalf of others who also received an identical fax from Interstate in May 2006 alleging that Interstate violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Interstate moved for summary judgment on the ground that a four-year statute of limitations barred Sparkle Hill’s claim. Sparkle Hill did not oppose the merits of Interstate’s limitations defense. The district court entered summary judgment dismissing the case, concluding that Sparkle Hill’s silence constituted a concession and that, on the merits, Sparkle Hill’s claim was time-barred. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant waived its arguments for finding error in the district court’s decision to hold it accountable for its lack of opposition to Interstate’s limitations defense. View "Sparkle Hill, Inc. v. Interstate Mat Corp." on Justia Law

During Plaintiff’s marriage dissolution proceedings, Nancy Smith served as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff’s children. After Plaintiff stopped paying bills to Smith, Smith assigned the unpaid bills to Collection Professionals, Inc. (CPI). CPI filed a complaint to collect the debt. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed this action alleging, among other claims, that Collection Professionals, Inc. (CPI) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by attempting to collect a false debt. CPI counterclaimed for the amount owed for Smith’s services. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of CPI and Smith. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly awarded summary judgment to CPI on Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim because the FDCPA did not apply under the circumstances of this case; (2) correctly awarded summary judgment to Smith; and (3) correctly awarded CPI $7,408 in damages plus interest. View "Amour v. Collection Prof’ls, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against ISPC, alleging that ISPC violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1635, 1637, by failing to disclose examples of minimum payments and the maximum repayment period, as well as failing to properly delay performance to allow plaintiffs to rescind the contract. The court concluded that ISPC did not take the requisite interest in plaintiffs’ primary residence to trigger the TILA protections on which plaintiffs rely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Lankhorst v. Indep. Savings Plan Co." on Justia Law

Morgan Drexen was described as a "legal software and legal software development company" owned and operated by nonlawyers but provided paraprofessional and administrative support to attorneys. The company provided debt-management services nationwide in conjunction with contracting attorneys, known as "engagement counsel." Morgan Drexen referred to engagement counsel as its "clients" and paid them a minimal fee that passed through the engagement counsel's (or engagement law firm's) trust accounts. Parties Donald Moore and Lawrence Williamson, Jr. served as engagement counsel. Moore was a Colorado-licensed attorney, and Williamson was a Kansas attorney who represented Colorado clients by association with Moore. In 2011, Morgan Drexen applied in Colorado to be registered as a debt-management service provider under the Debt Management Services Act (DMSA). The DMSA Administrator denied the application and issued a cease-and-desist order instructing Morgan Drexen to stop providing its services to Colorado residents and collecting fees. Morgan Drexen, Moore and Williamson filed a complaint seeking a declaration that :(1) they did not provide debt-management services under the original DMSA; and (2) the amended DMSA was unconstitutional. In its review of Morgan Drexen's appeal, the Supreme Court determined the trial court erred in concluding that Morgan Drexen's services fell within the scope of the legal services exemption in the original DMSA. Further, the amended DMSA was constitutional. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Coffman v. Williamson" on Justia Law

Defendants challenged a district court order requiring that they add two statements to their cigarette packages and advertisements: an announcement that a federal court has ruled that they “deliberately deceived the American public” about the dangers of cigarettes; and a declaration that they “intentionally designed cigarettes” to maximize addiction. The court concluded that given its earlier decisions in this case, the manufacturers’ objection to disclosing that they intentionally designed cigarettes to ensure addiction is both waived and foreclosed by the law of the case. Those decisions make equally clear that the district court, in ordering defendants to announce that they deliberately deceived the public, exceeded its authority under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, to craft remedies that “prevent and restrain” future violations. 18 U.S.C. 1964(a). The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendants violated the Fair Debt Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692f, by charging and attempting to collect interest at a rate higher than permitted under the law of her home state and that defendants violated New York's usury law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349; N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law 5-501; N.Y. Penal Law 190.40. The district court entered judgment in favor of defendants. The court reversed the district court's holding that the National Bank Act (NBA), 12 U.S.C. 85, preempts plaintiff's claims because neither defendant is a national bank nor a subsidiary or agent of a national bank, or is otherwise acting on behalf of a national bank, and because application of the state law on which plaintiff's claim relies would not significantly interfere with any national bank’s ability to exercise its powers under the NBA. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded to the court to address in the first instance whether the Delaware choice-of-law precludes plaintiff's claims. Finally, the court also vacated the district court's denial of class certification. View "Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claims that she entered into a credit card purchase from defendants, which did not involve mail order, shipping or cash advances, but that she “was asked for personal identification information, in the form of her email address, by defendants’ employee attending to the transaction.” Plaintiff provided the requested personal identification information, which was entered into the electronic sales register at the checkout counter adjacent to both defendants’ employee and plaintiff.” The amended complaint alleged violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Civil Code 1747.08, which provides that: [N]o person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation that accepts credit cards for the transaction of business shall . . . request, or require as a condition to accepting the credit card as payment in full or in part for goods or services, the cardholder to provide personal identification information, which the person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation accepting the credit card writes, causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction form or otherwise.” The trial court declined to certify a class in plaintiff’s suit. The court of appeal affirmed, agreeing that does not prohibit the collection of personal identification information once a credit card transaction has been concluded. View "Harrold v. Levi Strauss & Co." on Justia Law