Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against DHS, alleging twenty-one causes of action stemming from the Government's collection, maintenance, and use of information about him. The court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss each claim except those brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that DHS is in possession of his full and specific credit card number, along with information regarding the type and issuer of the card. That plaintiff possesses a major credit card of a specific type and number bears on his mode of living for purposes of the definition of "consumer report" within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's ruling that the Act's claims failed on the first prong of the definition of "consumer report" and remanded for further proceedings. View "Abdelfattah v. DHS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against J.C. Christensen, alleging that J.C. Christensen violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692, by offering to settle his debt for less than the full amount without warning him that his total savings might be reduced by an increase in his tax liability. The district court dismissed the suit. The court held that a debt collector need not warn of possible tax consequences when making a settlement offer for less than the full amount owed to comply with the FDCPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Altman v. J.C. Christensen & Assoc." on Justia Law

After refinancing a home mortgage in 2007, Beukes, mailed a notice of rescission in 2010, which was rejected. Beukes stopped making payments. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), as nominee for the lender, published notices of a mortgage foreclosure sale. MERS ultimately purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. Beukes sued, seeking rescission and damages under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), claiming that the amount disclosed as the finance charge on the loan understated the amount they were actually charged by $944.31. The district court dismissed. The Eighth Circuit held an appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, (2015), then affirmed the dismissal. Because Beukes mailed notice within three years, the right of rescission had not expired, but the finance charge disclosed in 2007 did not vary from the actual finance charge by more than one-half of one percent of the total amount financed, so it must be treated as accurate. Therefore, the right to rescind expired three business days after delivery of the disclosures. Beukes did not timely attempt to exercise any expanded right to rescind arising from section 1635(i)(2) that might have been available after the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. View "Beukes v. GMAC Mortg., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a debt collector, alleging that by sending a collection letter that sought ten percent interest on a debt, defendant violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692(f)(1) and thereby violated California's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Rosenthal Act), Cal. Civ. Code 1788-1788.33. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that defendant's debt collection letter did not violate the FDCPA or the Rosenthal Act where the district court's grant of summary judgment was based on an incorrect reading of California Civil Code section 3287. The court concluded that section 3287(a) can entitle a creditor to prejudgment interest on a debt that is certain or capable of being made certain even without a prior judgment. View "Diaz v. Kubler Corp." on Justia Law

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692, targets “independent debt collectors,” but excludes in-house collectors, including “any officer or employee of . . . any State to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties.” In Ohio, consumer debts that remain uncollected by a state entity are “certified” to the Attorney General (OAG), which enlists “special counsel” as independent contractors for collections. Actions taken by special counsel are dictated by an agreement, which requires special counsel to comply with FDCPA standards. All collections must be endorsed to the OAG before special counsel is entitled to a fee. Special counsel were orally directed to use OAG letterhead for all collections (including consumer debts, although contrary to Ohio’s code). Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging violation of the FDCPA by use of OAG letterhead. The district court entered summary judgment, holding that special counsel are not “debt collectors” under the FDCPA, and that, even if they were, use of OAG letterhead was not a “false, deceptive or misleading” communication. The Sixth Circuit vacated. A jury could reasonably find that the use of the OAG letterhead by the “special counsel,” in the manner and under the circumstances present here, resulted in letters that were actually confusing to the least sophisticated consumer. View "Gillie v. Law Office of Eric A. Jones, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against BevMo seeking civil penalties for violation of Civil Code section 1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1747 et seq. Plaintiff purchased alcohol online through BevMo's website and elected to pick up his order at a BevMo store. The court concluded that plaintiff was bound by the allegation in his initial complaint that the transaction was completed online when he paid for the merchandise with his credit card. Applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Apple Inc. v. Superior Court, the court concluded that section 1747.08, subdivision (a) does not apply to plaintiff's online purchase of merchandise that he subsequently retrieved at the retail store. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of BevMo. View "Ambers v. Beverages & More, Inc." on Justia Law

Four Western Union customers whose wire transfers failed sued Western Union, alleging state-law claims for, among other things, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Named Plaintiffs initiated this litigation as a class action on behalf of all Western Union customers whose wire transfers failed. This class included three groups: 1) those customers who, like the named Plaintiffs, had already reclaimed their funds from Western Union; 2) those customers whose funds had already escheated to a state; and 3) those customers whose funds Western Union was currently holding. Two unnamed class members challenged the district court’s decision to certify the class and approve the settlement. They argued, among other things, that the class representatives could not adequately represent all of the class members; the settlement was unfair because it used primarily the money belonging to the class to fund the settlement; and the district court did not adequately notify absent class members of the class action and the settlement. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded their objections lacked merit. View "Tennille v. Western Union" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5481 et seq., as a violation of the separation of powers. The district court dismissed the complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief without reaching the merits of the complaint, ruling that Morgan Drexen Inc. had an adequate remedy at law in an enforcement action filed by the Bureau in the Central District of California, where Morgan Drexen could raise the constitutional challenge as a defense. The district court also ruled that the other plaintiff, an attorney who contracts with Morgan Drexen for paralegal services, lacked standing under Article III. The court affirmed, concluding that the attorney failed to proffer evidence of an injury in fact at the time she filed the complaint and that Morgan Drexen failed to show the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint. View "Morgan Drexen, Inc. v. CFPB" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased Restaurant.com gift certificates, substantially all of which display restaurant-specific conditions and Restaurant.com’s standard conditions, including expiration one year from date of issue, “except in California and where otherwise provided by law,” and that the certificate is “[v]oid to the extent prohibited by law.” Plaintiffs filed a purported class action, alleging violations of the New Jersey Gift Certificate Statute, prohibiting gift certificates from expiring within 24 months of the date of sale; Consumer Fraud Act, creating a cause of action for violations of the Statute; and Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, prohibiting notice to a consumer or offering any written consumer contract that violates any clearly established consumer right or seller responsibility; any notice or consumer contract that states that any of its provisions may be void in some jurisdictions must also specify “which provisions are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.” After the Third Circuit certified questions to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, it vacated dismissal of the TCCWNA count. On remand, the district court dismissed, reasoning that retroactive application was inappropriate because the state court decision established a new rule of law and because the plaintiffs did not have “non-theoretical damages.” The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for entry of judgment solely in favor of the named plaintiffs, noting that their efforts brought about the new rule. View "Bohus v. Restaurant.Com Inc" on Justia Law

After Karrie Lynn Serrania went to Discovery Dental Group, PLLC (DDG) for a toothache, DDG referred her account to LPH, Inc., a debt collection agency. Serrania later sued LPH and DDC, alleging, among other claims, that LPH violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). LPH and DDG counterclaimed for breach of contract. The district court (1) sanctioned Serrania’s attorney for failing to attend a pretrial conference, (2) entered summary judgment against Serrania on the contract and FDCPA claims, and (3) sanctioned Serrania and her attorney for their conduct in the course of litigation. After the district court entered judgment, Serrania underwent bankruptcy, and her dental debts and the district court’s orders were discharged. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part, holding (1) some of Serrania’s arguments on appeal are moot, but her appeal of the district court’s summary judgment order on her FDPCA claim is live, and her attorney has an interest in overturning the sanctions entered against him; (2) the district court correctly entered judgment to LPH on the FDCPA claim; and (3) the district court erred in ordering Serrania and her attorney jointly to pay $24,797 to DDG and $41,113 to LPH as sanctions. View "Serrania v. LPH, Inc." on Justia Law