Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Benjamin and Keri Fidelak filed a petition for damages in Caddo Parish district court (a court of proper venue) against Foreign & Classic Auto Centre, Inc., a small, independent repair shop in Shreveport, which specialized in the repair of high end foreign automobiles. The Fidelaks claimed that Foreign & Classic sold them a defective engine for their 2004 Land Rover. In response, Foreign & Classic raised numerous defenses and asserted a third party demand against British Parts International (BPI) for reimbursement and indemnification because BPI sold the engine to Foreign & Classic. BPI is headquartered in Houston, Texas, and conducts business nationwide. The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter centered on the enforceability of a forum selection clause. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and held that the forum selection clause at issue here was not enforceable because a third party defendant may not object to venue where the principal action has been instituted in the proper venue. View "Fidelak v. Holmes European Motors, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a consumer telephone service complaint against Verizon New England. The Department of Telecommunications and Cable eventually dismissed Plaintiff's claim as moot because, during the course of the proceedings, Plaintiff's customer relationship with Verizon had been terminated. On appeal, a single justice dismissed Plaintiff's complaint because it failed to comply with the timely filing requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 25, 5. Plaintiff appealed to the full court. The Department subsequently afforded Plaintiff a renewed opportunity to pursue a timely appeal under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 25, 5, and Plaintiff chose to do so. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the ruling of the single justice that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 25, 5 governs appeals from final orders issued by the Department; and (2) declared the remainder of the matter moot because Plaintiff filed a new petition for judicial review within the time period required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 25, 5. Remanded. View "Olmstead v. Dep't of Telecommunications & Cable" on Justia Law

The parties in this case entered into an agreement with two writings drafted by U-Haul of West Virginia. The first writing was a rental contract signed by the three plaintiffs. The second writing was a rental contract addendum that was not signed. The addendum contained a provision requiring that any disputes between the parties be arbitrated and was not made available to U-Haul customers prior to their execution of the rental contract. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against U-Haul for breach of contract and false advertising, among other claims. U-Haul sought to compel Plaintiffs to resolve their claims in arbitration, arguing that the addendum was incorporated by reference into the signed rental contracts, and thus, U-Haul was allowed to enforce the arbitration provision. The circuit court denied U-Haul's motion to compel arbitration. U-Haul then filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a writ of prohibition to set aside the circuit court order that refused to compel Plaintiffs to participate in arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the addendum was not incorporated by reference into the signed rental contracts.View "State ex rel. U-Haul Co. of W. Va. v. Zakaib" on Justia Law

These two consolidated appeals concerned two appellants who separately sued the Housing Authority for Baltimore County (HABC) for negligence and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA) for injuries arising out of Appellants' alleged exposure to lead paint in properties that HABC owned and operated. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of HABC, finding that Appellants in both cases did not substantially comply with the notice requirement of the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly concluded that Appellants did not substantially comply with the LGTCA notice requirement; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Appellants did not show good cause for their failure to comply with the LGTCA notice requirement; and (3) the LGTCA notice requirement, as applied to a minor plaintiff in a lead paint action against HABC, does not violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. View "Ellis v. Housing Auth of Baltimore County" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a complaint against multiple defendants alleging negligence and violations of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) for injuries resulting from his exposure to lead-based paint when he lived at two properties in Baltimore City while he was an infant. At the close of discovery, Defendants filed several dispositive and evidentiary motions, which the trial court granted. The court of special appeals affirmed. At issue before the Court of Appeals was the exclusion of a lead test report, the exclusion of testimony by Petitioner's medical expert, and the grant of summary judgment as to Petitioner's CPA cause of action. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the court of special appeals erred in holding that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding the lead test report and the testimony by Petitioner's medical expert; and (2) the court of special appeals did not err in affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment as to Petitioner's cause of action under the CPA. Remanded.View "Butler v. S&S P'ship" on Justia Law

A commercial tenant remained in possession of premises for six years after it lost its lease when the property was sold through foreclosure. The tenant ultimately conceded that the foreclosure terminated the lease and the tenant became a tenant at sufferance. The property owner sued the tenant for breach of the terminated lease, trespass and other torts, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The trial court granted summary judgment for the tenant on all claims. The court of appeals reversed and remanded in part. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a tenant at sufferance cannot be liable for breach of the previously-terminated lease agreement; (2) a tenant at sufferance is a trespasser and can be liable in tort, including, in this case, tortious interference with prospective business relations; (3) the tenant here was not liable under the DTPA because the property owner was not a consumer; and (4) the owner in this case could not recover under the attorney's fees under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. Remanded.View "Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp." on Justia Law

Robert and Tracy Barrett appealed the grant of two summary judgments in favor of Carlos Roman d/b/a Carlos Roman Roofing ("Roman") and Bobby Beach d/b/a Just Brick Masonry ("Beach") on all of the Barretts' claims against Roman and Beach. The issues before the Supreme Court in this appeal required resolution of the same issues that were in claims pending in the circuit court against a third party. A November 2012 judgment disposed of all of the Barretts' claims against Beach and Roman, but it did not dispose of the Barretts' claims against the third party. Thus, the Court's consideration of the circuit court's summary judgments in favor of Beach and Roman as final would mean that the intertwined claims against the subcontractors named as defendants in this action would have been litigated in piecemeal fashion. "The piecemeal adjudication of the claims against the subcontractors pose[d] an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results. Therefore, we must conclude that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in certifying the summary judgments in favor of Beach and Roman as final." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Barretts' appeal.View "Barrett v. Roman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were two Kansas residents who entered into an agreement with an out-of-state limited liability company (LLC) to assist them in managing their consumer debt and in dealing with their creditors. Plaintiffs brought an action against the LLC, its managing member, and other entities in federal court for alleged violations of the Kansas Credit Services Organization Act (KCSOA) and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA). The U.S. district court certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court regarding the application of KCSOA and KCPA to attorneys and law firms. The Supreme Court answered by holding (1) If an attorney who is licensed to practice law in Kansas and who is acting within the course and scope of his or her practice is exempt from the provisions of the KCSOA, the attorney's law firm is also exempt; and (2) attorneys are not inherently exempt from the reach of the KCPA by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers, but certain statutory remedies may be unconstitutional if they encroach on the traditional exclusive powers of the court, especially the powers relating to issuing and regulating the license to practice law.View "Hays v. Ruther" on Justia Law

Ford Motor Credit Company appealed a district court order dismissing its action to renew a prior judgment. Ford sued Jeremy Halvorson in Minnesota on a contract matter. A judgment was entered in Minnesota against Halvorson. Halvorson moved from Minnesota to North Dakota, and the Minnesota judgment was registered in North Dakota in 2011. Halvorson did not pay the judgment. In 2013, Ford commenced this action to renew the judgment by personal service of the summons and complaint upon Halvorson. Halvorson did not respond to the summons and complaint, and Ford moved for entry of a default judgment against Halvorson. The district court, on its own motion, denied the motion for default judgment and instead dismissed Ford's complaint with prejudice, concluding that Ford's action was an improper duplicate action on the original debt and that the proper method to renew a judgment was by affidavit under the procedure provided in N.D.C.C. 28-20-21. Ford moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing its action, and the court entered an order affirming dismissal of the action. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order dismissing Ford's action on the judgment. Because there was no reason apparent on the record to deny the default judgment, the Court remanded the case to the district court with directions to enter a default judgment in favor of Ford in its action to renew the prior judgment. View "Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Halvorson" on Justia Law

In 2006, Respondents obtained an adjustable rate mortgage loan from a mortgage company. Respondents executed a deed of trust on the real property being purchased and separately executed an arbitration rider. Respondents later defaulted on the loan, and Petitioner, which serviced the loan, assessed a number of fees. Respondents filed an action against Petitioner alleging violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. Petitioner filed a motion to compel arbitration. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under the Dodd-Frank Act and that it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's requested writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the circuit court's order, holding (1) the Dodd-Frank Act did not apply to the mortgage loan because the loan was executed prior to the Act's enactment; and (2) the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.View "State ex rel. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Circuit Court of Kanawha County" on Justia Law