Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that two groups of defendants, (1) Premera, Premera Blue Cross, and Life Wise Health Plan of Washington (collectively Premera) and (2) the Washington Alliance for Healthcare Insurance Trust and its trustee, F. Bentley Lovejoy (collectively WAHIT), colluded and made false and misleading representations to the plaintiffs that induced the plaintiffs to purchase health insurance policies under false pretenses. Plaintiff-policyholders claimed that Premera and WAHIT violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The plaintiffs requested only two specific forms of damages: (1) for the "unfair business practices and excessive overcharges for premiums," the plaintiffs requested "the sum of the excess premiums paid to the defendants;" and (2) "[i]f the surplus is excessive and unreasonable," the plaintiffs asserted that "the amount of the excess surplus should be refunded to the subscribers who have paid the high premiums causing the excess." On Premera and WAHIT's motion, the trial court dismissed the Policyholders' suit in its entirety based on the filed rate, primary jurisdiction, and exhaustion of remedies doctrines. Specifically, the trial court dismissed all claims of class B (small group) and class C (individuals) pursuant to CR 12(b )( 6) and dismissed all claims of class A (large group) on summary judgment under CR 56. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in relation to certain of the Policyholders' CPA claims. Because awarding the specific damages requested by the plaintiffs would require a court to inappropriately substitute its judgment for that of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC), the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. View "McCarthy Fin., Inc. v. Premera" on Justia Law

Darilyn Baker appealed a district court order denying her motion for class action certification. In 2007, Baker purchased a car from Autos, Inc., d.b.a. Global Auto. Baker financed the purchase of the car by trading in her old vehicle and by entering into a retail installment sales contract with Global Auto. The total included a "document administration fee" of $195 and a "loan fee" of $200. Baker agreed to repay the loan in thirty monthly payments of $247.08. The retail installment contract also provided that if the payment was late, Baker would be charged $25. Baker was late on making some of her required monthly payments, and the vehicle was repossessed. Before Baker defaulted on her loan, Global Auto assigned Baker's contract to RW Enterprises. After the vehicle was repossessed, Baker filed suit in state district court alleging Global Auto and RW Enterprises' sales and lending practices violated state usury law, among other claims. Baker also sued Robert Opperude and James Hendershot, the principal owners of Global Auto, and Randy Westby, the principal owner of RW Enterprises. In state district court, Baker filed a motion to have the suit certified as a class action for all putative purchasers who, subject to the applicable statute of limitations period, may have suffered an injury as a result of Global Auto and RW Enterprises' business practices. Baker alleged the "loan fee," the "document administration fee," and the late payment charge violated North Dakota usury law and the North Dakota Retail Installment Sales Act. After a hearing on the motion for class certification, the district court entered an order denying the motion. The court did not rule on the merits of the case. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in applying the law to the thirteen sub-factors of the fair and efficient adjudication factor, it reversed the district court's order denying certification and remanded with instructions to reconsider the sub-factors in light of this holding. View "Baker v. Autos, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant realtor who represented the seller in the sale of an inn. Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in concluding that defendant's alleged misrepresentation and omission were immaterial as a matter of law. Defendant Barbara Walowit Realty, Inc. was the listing agent for the inn. The prior-prospective purchaser claims she told defendant during their conversation that she had witnessed flooding in the parking lot and had learned of "major problems with the roof and that there was a possibility of collapse." Based on statements made by defendant, and a report prepared by the seller with regard to the condition of the inn, plainitffs entered into a purchase-and-sale agreement with the seller in December 2007. The agreement contained an inspection contingency. At the recommendation of defendant, plaintiffs then hired engineers to perform a pre-purchase structural inspection of the property, and received an inspection report in late January 2008. The sale closed in May 2008. In September, after encountering various problems relating to the condition of the inn, plaintiffs sued defendant for negligence and consumer fraud for defendant's alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the condition of the inn. Plaintiffs and defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On the claim of negligence, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant. As to the claim of consumer fraud, the court considered, among other things, defendant's alleged failure to disclose the contents of her conversation with the prior-prospective purchaser and to disclose the estimate of roof repair costs that was in her files. The court concluded that the statements from the prior-prospective purchaser were "simply too vague and foundationless to give rise to knowledge of specific material facts that [defendant] would have a duty to disclose" under the Consumer Fraud Act. The court further concluded that defendant's failure to disclose the roof-repair estimate was not a material omission because plaintiffs "already knew the roof needed repairs" from the engineer's report, and disclosure "would have left them in the same position in which the report placed them; needing to make further inquiry." Thus, the court concluded that the estimate "cannot be considered material as a matter of law," and granted judgment to defendant. Plaintiffs appealed. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision with regard to the consumer protection claim, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "PH West Dover Property, LLC. v. Lalancette Engineers" on Justia Law

Oteria Moses borrowed $1,000 under a loan agreement that was illegal under North Carolina law. When Moses filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, CashCall, Inc., the loan servicer, filed a proof of claim. Moses subsequently filed an adversary proceeding against CashCall seeking a declaration that the loan was illegal and also seeking money damages for CashCall’s allegedly illegal debt collection activities. CashCall filed a motion to compel arbitration. The bankruptcy court denied CashCall’s motion to compel arbitration and retained jurisdiction over both Moses’ first claim for declaratory relief and second claim for damages. On appeal, the district court affirmed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court’s exercise of jurisdiction to retain in bankruptcy Moses’ first claim; but (2) erred in retaining in bankruptcy Moses’ claim for damages and denying CashCall’s motion to compel arbitration of that claim, as this claim was not constitutionally core. Remanded with instruction to grant CashCall’s motion to compel arbitration on Moses’ second claim for damages. View "Moses v. CashCall, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a false advertising lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC (collectively, McNeil) challenging several of McNeil’s assertions about its product, Benecol, a vegetable oil-based spread. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that McNeil’s claims about its product were not authorized under the FDA’s regulations and were false. Plaintiff asserted claims for relief on behalf of a putative class of Benecol purchasers under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The district court granted McNeil’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to plead reasonable reliance on any misrepresentations and that Plaintiff’s claims for relief were preempted under federal law. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff had standing to challenge McNeil’s statements; (2) Plaintiff’s claims for relief were not preempted to the extent they were predicated on McNeil’s statements about trans fat, and a certain FDA letter was not entitled to preemptive effect; and (3) Plaintiff’s action was not barred by the primary jurisdiction doctrine. Remanded. View "Reid v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs obtained loans to purchase their home in 2005, each secured by a deed of trust. Wells Fargo had the senior lien, and Chase had the junior lien. Wells Fargo foreclosed on the property, but the proceeds were not enough to pay off Chase’s loan. About a year later, Chase sent plaintiffs a letter, stating that plaintiffs still “owe[d]” $67,002.04 and offering to accept $16,750.56 “as settlement for [their] loan balance.” The letter purported to offer a short window of opportunity to resolve the] delinquency before the debt was accelerated. In its final sentence, the letter disavowed any “attempt to collect a debt or to impose personal liability” that “was discharged.” Chase sent a similar second letter. Chase and PRS also made collection calls to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued Chase and PRS on behalf of a potential class, claiming that Chase’s right to enforce its loan against them personally had been extinguished and that defendants’ letters and calls were misleading for implying that the debt was still owed. Plaintiffs cited California’s Rosenthal Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692. The trial court dismissed. The court of appeal held that a borrower may sue the debt collector under the FDCPA and may sue the junior lienholder or its debt collector under the Rosenthal Act and UCL, but may not sue for violations of CLRA. View "Alborzian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

American Express sent Wise a credit card and “Agreement.” Wise accepted the offer by using the credit card. The Agreement provides that it is governed by the laws of Utah and provides that, upon default: “You agree to pay all reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by us.” Wise defaulted on the account, and American Express retained a law firm, which filed suit in Ohio state court. Wise filed for bankruptcy, staying that lawsuit, then filed a putative class action lawsuit against the attorneys, seeking to represent consumers from whom they demanded attorney’s fees. Noting that Ohio law bars contracts that would require payment of attorney’s fees on the collection of consumer debt, Wise alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692,and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), Ohio Rev. Code 1345.02, 1345.03. The district court applied Utah law and determined that: the case fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause; OCSPA did not apply; Utah law allowed for the collection of attorney’s fees: and there was no FDCPA violation. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. The pleadings do not resolve which law would govern the attorney’s-fee question. On the state law claim, the court affirmed. View "Wise v. Zwicker & Assocs., PC" on Justia Law

Fridman paid her mortgage electronically, using the online payment system on the website of her mortgage servicer, NYCB. By furnishing the required information and clicking on the required spot, she authorized NYCB to collect funds from her Bank of America account. Although Fridman filled out the form within the grace period allowed by her note, NYCB did not credit her payment for two business days, causing Fridman to incur a late fee. Fridman filed suit on behalf of herself and a putative class, alleging that NYCB’s practice of not crediting online payments on the day that the consumer authorizes them violates the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601. The district court granted NYCB summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed. An electronic authorization for a mortgage payment entered on the mortgage servicer’s website is a “payment instrument or other means of payment.” TILA requires mortgage services to credit these authorizations when they “reach[] the mortgage servicer.” View "Fridman v. NYCB Mortgage Co. LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Dione Aguirre appealed an order denying class certification. Plaintiff sued defendants Amscan Holdings, Inc., and PA Acquisition, doing business as Party America (collectively, Party America) on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging Party America violated Civil Code the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (Civil Code section 1747 et seq.) by routinely requesting and recording personal identification information, namely ZIP Codes, from customers using credit cards in its retail stores in California. The trial court found that plaintiff's proposed class of "[a]ll persons in California from whom Defendant requested and recorded a ZIP code in conjunction with a credit card purchase transaction from June 2, 2007 through October 13, 2010" was not an ascertainable class due to "plaintiff's inability to clearly identify, locate and notify class members through a reasonable expenditure of time and money [. . .] bars her from litigating this case as a class action." Plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court erred in determining the class was not ascertainable based upon the finding that each individual class member was not specifically identifiable from Party America's records (and thus, notice to the class could not be directly provided to class members.) The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard in determining the proposed class was not ascertainable and erred in its conclusion. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Despite having only a few hundred dollars in her checking account at SunTrust Bank, Appellant cut herself a check for nearly $10,000, resulting in a sizable overdraft. SunTrust hired a Maryland law firm, Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates (MR&A) to bring a debt collection suit. MR&A filed suit on SunTrust’s behalf in a general district court in Virginia. The general district court entered judgment in favor of MR&A. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint against SunTrust and MR&A (collectively, Appellees), alleging that Appellees violated Maryland consumer protection laws and that MR&A violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The federal district court dismissed Appellant’s suit for failure to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the counts alleged in Appellant’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief. View "Elyazidi v. SunTrust Bank" on Justia Law