Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

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

Patron won 185 credits, or $1.85, while playing a penny slot machine at a Casino. However, at the same time, a message appeared on the screen stating, “Bonus Award - $41797550.16.” The Casino refused to pay the alleged bonus, claiming that the slot machine game malfunctioned, and therefore, the bonus award displayed on the screen was not valid. The Patron filed suit against the Casino, asserting breach of contract, estoppel, and consumer fraud. The district court granted summary judgment to the Casino on all three counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the rules of the game formed a contract between the Patron and the Casino, and the Patron was not entitled to the bonus under those rules; (2) the Patron failed to prove the necessary elements of either promissory or equitable estoppel; and (3) the Patron failed to present proof of an ascertainable loss sufficient to warrant recovery on her consumer fraud claim. View "McKee v. Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a dispute between a homeowners association that was a West Virginia Limited Expense Planned Community (“Association”), and homeowners who failed to pay their association assessments (“Homeowners”). The instant conflict revolved around the Association’s ability to place a lien on the real property of homeowners whose dues were delinquent. The Association filed separate complaints against the Homeowners, who responded by filing separate answers and counterclaims asserting violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act (WVCCPA). The circuit court consolidated the cases and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Association as to all of the Homeowners’ counterclaims, concluding (1) the Association had valid common law liens against the Homeowners’ real property; and (2) a homeowner associations’ attempts to collect assessments are not subject to the WVCCPA. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) an association is statutorily authorized to assert a consensual common law lien against real property; and (2) the unfair debt collection provisions of the WVCCPA do apply to a homeowner association’s attempts to collect delinquent assessments. View "Fleet v. Webber Springs Owners Ass’n" on Justia Law

When Samantha Reckis was seven years old, she developed toxic epidermal necrolysis, a life-threatening skin disorder, after receiving multiple doses of Children’s Motrin, an over-the-counter medication with ibuprofen as its active ingredient. Plaintiffs, Samantha and her parents, sued the manufacturer and marketer of Children’s Motrin and its parent company, alleging that Samantha developed TEN as a result of being exposed to ibuprofen in the Children’s Motrin and that the warning label on the medication’s bottle rendered the product defective because it failed to warn consumers about the serious risk of developing a life-threatening disease from it. A jury found in favor of Plaintiffs and awarded Samantha a total of $50 million in compensatory damages and each of Samantha’s parents $6.5 million for loss of consortium. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ claim of failure to warn was not preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; (2) a pharmacologist who offered the causation evidence essential to Plaintiffs’ case was qualified to testify as to specific medical causation, and the testimony was reliable and admissible; and (3) the damages awarded to each of the plaintiffs were not grossly excessive or unsupported by the record. View "Reckis v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

Environmental Law Foundation (ELF), sued Beech-Nut and other food manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, seeking enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65 (Health & Saf. Code, 25249.5). ELF alleged certain of defendants’ products contain toxic amounts of lead sufficient to trigger the duty to provide warnings to consumers. The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants, concluding they had no duty to warn because they satisfactorily demonstrated that the average consumer’s reasonably anticipated rate of exposure to lead from their products falls below relevant regulatory thresholds. The court of appeal affirmed, analyzing regulations promulgated by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. View "Environmental Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition" on Justia Law