Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., against FCI, his mortgage loan servicer and a debt collector, alleging that FCI violated the FDCPA by sending him two written communications that failed to comply with FDCPA requirements that debt collectors timely provide certain notices to debtors. The district court granted FCI's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ruling principally that the letter, which the district court viewed as primarily a transfer‐of‐servicing informational notice sent pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2605, was not also a communication sent “in connection with the collection of any debt” under the FDCPA. The district court also ruled that plaintiff failed to allege that FCI violated the FDCPA by mailing the payment statement and the district court denied plaintiff leave to filed a second amended complaint. The court applied an objective standard to resolve the question and concluded that plaintiff adequately alleged that the Letter was an “initial communication . . . in connection with the collection of [a] debt,” so as to obligate FCI to provide plaintiff a section 1692g notice. Therefore, the district court erred in granting the motion, and the court vacated and remanded. View "Hart v. FCI Lender Serv." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Landmark, seeking statutory damages for alleged violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C.1693, et seq., after he was charged $2.95 for an ATM withdrawal but was not given notice or informed of the fee. The district court granted Landmark's second motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At issue was whether Landmark’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer, assuming it were complete, mooted plaintiff’s individual claim and the class action claims. Finding the reasoning of the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits persuasive, the court held that an unaccepted offer of judgment to a named plaintiff in a class action “is a legal nullity, with no operative effect.” Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle. Accordingly, given that plaintiff's individual claim was not mooted by the unaccepted offer in this case, neither were the class claims. The court reversed and remanded. View "Hooks v. Landmark Indus." on Justia Law

Burglars stole four desktop computers from Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation’s Illinois administrative offices. The computers contained unencrypted private data relating to approximately four million Advocate patients. Six of those patients brought a putative class action alleging that Advocate did too little to safeguard their information, asserting claims for willful and negligent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681. The district court dismissed the FCRA claims for failure to state a claim. It also found that four of the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because their injuries were too speculative; the thieves had stolen their information but had not yet misused it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Using information internally does not count as “furnishing … to third parties,” so the Act’s reasonable‐procedures provision did not apply, and the FCRA claims were properly dismissed. View "Tierney v. Advocate Health & Hosp. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed separate class action complaints against GMAC, alleging violations of Maryland's Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-1001 et seq.; breach of contract; declaratory and injunctive relief; restitution/unjust enrichment; and violation of Maryland's Consumer Protect Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 13-101 et seq. At issue was whether borrowers may seek a remedy after their creditors violate the repossession notice requirements in the CLEC. The court concluded that the CLEC requires borrowers to have repaid more than the original principal amount of their loans before they are entitled to relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to GMAC. View "Gardner v. GMAC, Inc." on Justia Law

Latoya Brown purchased a Mazda 6 from Dick Smith Nissan, Inc. through the dealer's salesman, Robert Hiller. The purchase was contingent on acquiring third-party financing. Due to continuing and unresolved issues with financing, Brown returned the vehicle to Dick Smith. The car was later repossessed and sold by Sovereign Bank with a deficiency against Brown. Brown filed a complaint against Dick Smith and Old Republic Surety Company, the surety on Dick Smith's licensing bond, alleging violations of the South Carolina Dealers Act. The trial judge, in a bench trial, found in favor of Brown and awarded damages plus interest as well as attorney's fees and costs. Dick Smith and Old Republic appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that any misconceptions that Brown had about her financing were caused by Sovereign Bank, not Dick Smith. Despite evidence in the record to support the trial judge's findings of fact, the Court of Appeals ignored those findings and substituted its own. By doing so, the Court of Appeals exceeded its standard of review. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial judge's decision. View "Brown v. Dick Smith Nissan" on Justia Law

The plaintiff alleged consumer fraud by the seller of a dietary supplement, and the district court certified a plaintiff class of individuals “who purchased Instaflex within the applicable statute of limitations of the respective Class States for personal use until the date notice is disseminated,” under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). The court rejected defendant’s argument that Rule 23(b)(3) implies a heightened ascertainability requirement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting an implicit requirement under Rule 23 that a class must be defined clearly and that membership be defined by objective criteria rather than by, for example, a class member’s state of mind. In addressing this requirement, courts have sometimes used the term “ascertainability.” Class definitions fail this requirement when they were too vague or subjective, or when class membership was defined in terms of success on the merits (fail-safe classes). This class satisfied “ascertainability” View "Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC" on Justia Law

Bowman law firm filed suit in Hendricks County Indiana, to recover Bentrud’s credit card debt owed to Capital One. Months later, Bowman moved for summary judgment. Bentrud responded by invoking the arbitration provision in his credit card agreement. The state court granted Bentrud’s election of arbitration and stayed the case, allowing Bentrud 30 days to initiate arbitration. The American Arbitration Association declined to do the arbitration because Capital One had previously failed to comply with its policy regarding consumer claims. Bentrud failed to meet the 30-day deadline, so that the stay automatically dissolved. Bowman filed a second summary judgment motion. Although the state court granted an extension, Bentrud characterized that motion, as an unfair or unconscionable means of attempting to collect a debt, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692f. Bentrud also claimed that the Annual Percentage Rate on his credit card debt was 13.9%, but when Bowman filed its state court complaint, it averred the applicable interest rate to be 10.65%. The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of Bowman, noting that when Bowman filed a second summary judgment motion, it acted consistently with the state court order and that any interest rate violation would be attributable to Capital One, which was not a party. View "Bentrud v. Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vicia, P.C." on Justia Law

The Bank and a group of States challenged the constitutionality of various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376. The district court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were not ripe. The court concluded that the Bank has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and that claim is ripe. Therefore, the court reversed as to that claim and remanded for reconsideration in the first instance the Bank’s constitutional challenge to the Bureau. The court also concluded that the Bank has standing to challenge Director Cordray’s recess appointment, and that claim is ripe. Therefore, the court reversed as to that claim and remanded for reconsideration in the first instance the Bank’s constitutional challenge to the recess appointment. The court further concluded that the Bank lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and affirmed the judgment as to that claim. Finally, the court concluded that the State plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Government’s orderly liquidation authority, and that claim is not ripe. Therefore, the court affirmed as to that claim. View "State Nat'l Bank of Big Spring v. Lew" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against TMCC and Troy Campise, the Sales Manager of Lakeside Toyota, an automobile dealership, alleging that TMCC and Campise defrauded him by leading him to believe that a lease for a Toyota Corolla automobile would be tax exempt because the co-lessee, DELF, Inc., was a non-profit organization for which plaintiff is the registered agent and chief executive officer. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the lease at issue was made to an organization as well as a natural person and therefore cannot be a consumer lease under the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), 15 U.S.C. 1667-1667f. Because the CLA does not apply to a lease that is made to an organization, the court need not determine whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the lease was for personal use, rather than for agricultural, business, or commercial purposes. View "Dixon v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp." on Justia Law

Bank of America loaned Leipzig $960,000, secured by a deed of trust on a Brentwood, Tennessee residence. Leipzig assigned his rights in the residence to a trust, which leased it to Johannessen in 2010. The lease had a five-year term and an option to buy. Johannessen exercised that option in 2011, but otherwise did not act to obtain title. Leipzig stopped making payments. In 2013, Johannessen assigned his lease and option rights to Anarion; the residence was in foreclosure. Published foreclosure notices stated that Brock was a “substitute trustee” for purposes of the loan “by an instrument duly recorded.” Anarion alleges there was no such “instrument,” and, based on that putative “misrepresentation,” sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The court dismissed, holding that Anarion is not a “person” under the Act, which states that “any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable.” The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that section 1692a(3), defines “consumer” to mean “any natural person,” suggesting that, when Congress meant to refer only to natural persons, it did so expressly. The court noted that its decision does not mean that Anarion can bring suit under the FDCPA. View "Anarion Invs., LLC v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC" on Justia Law