Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

In 2005, Lox received medical treatment from Dr. Baylor and incurred a debt. Lox failed to pay. His debt was referred to CDA, a debt collection agency. CDA attempted to collect Lox’s debt was through dunning letters, and one of those letters included a warning that failure to pay his debt could lead to a lawsuit brought against Lox. The letter further stated that if Dr. Baylor was successful in his lawsuit, Lox could be ordered by the court to pay Dr. Baylor’s attorney fees. Lox claimed violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, claiming that Dr. Baylor could not, under any circumstances, have recovered attorney fees from Lox. The district court granted CDA summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The attorney fees statements found in CDA’s dunning letters were materially false and misleading on their face. View "Lox v. CDA, Ltd." on Justia Law

Defendant, Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, sent a debt collection letter addressed to Plaintiff, Catherine Evon, in "care of" her employer. Evon filed a class action lawsuit alleging (1) Mickell's act of sending letters "care of" the class members' employers violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's prohibition on communication with third parties, and (2) the contents of the letter violated the Act's prohibition against false, deceptive, or misleading misrepresentations. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) held Mickell's act of sending "care of" letters constituted a per se violation of the Act, and reversed the district court's denial of Evon's class certification motion on that issue; and (2) held that the contents of the letter did not violate the Act, and therefore affirmed the district court's denial of Evon's class certification motion in that regard. Remanded. View "Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell" on Justia Law

A bank customer sued her bank to recover for unauthorized withdrawals from her checking account, made using her check card and personal identification number (PIN). Federal law requires a bank to investigate such disputed transactions, to notify the customer if it has verified the transactions as authorized, and to recredit the account if the withdrawals were unauthorized; failure to do so renders the bank liable to the customer for up to treble damages. The bank investigated the withdrawals at issue in this case, found that they were the product of a scheme to defraud the bank, and denied liability for the withdrawals. The customer, represented by counsel, brought suit. By the time the case was tried to the district court, the customer was pro se. After a two-day bench trial, the District Court rejected the customer's EFTA claims and entered judgment for the bank. Specifically, the District Court found that the transactions were authorized because they were part of a scheme to defraud the bank. The customer appealed pro se. Although the briefs were "inartfully" drawn, she challenged the District Court's finding as clearly erroneous. After thorough review, the Eleventh Circuit found no error and therefore affirmed. View "Merisier v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2007, while Plaintiffs-Appellants Scott and Lisa Sanders were attempting to refinance their home, they discovered Salt Lake City Credit Union had “reported twelve new maxed-out accounts on the Sanders[es]’ credit [reports].” They say this “destroyed [their] credit and made it impossible to refinance.” Afterward, the credit union “apologized for the misreporting” and “offered to make amends by providing [them] with a ‘free’ refinance.” They accepted this conciliatory offer and closed on the refinancing loan in July 2007. Salt Lake City Credit Union later merged with appellee Mountain America. In March 2009, the Sanderses applied to Mountain America to again refinance their loan. They completed the application by phone, but Mountain America denied their application at the end of the call. Pertinent to this appeal, the Sanderses’ complaint alleged: (1) they had not been provided with the disclosures required under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) thereby entitling them to invoke statutory rescission; (2) Mountain America violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) when it failed to provide a notice of adverse action after denying their application for refinancing; and (3) Mountain America’s inaccurate credit reporting violated the Fair Credit Report Act (FCRA). The district court dismissed these claims on the pleadings. Although the Tenth Circuit had not addressed the issue, several circuits allow district courts to equitably condition the creditor’s duty on the borrower’s ability to repay the loan proceeds. In this case, however, the district court went further by concluding a borrower seeking to compel rescission must plead ability to repay. The court invoked this rule to dismiss the TILA rescission claim of the Sanderses. It also dismissed their claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings: the Court affirmed with respect to the FCRA claim and reversed with respect to the TILA rescission and ECOA claims. View "Sanders v. Ethington" on Justia Law

Autozone was fined for violating the Pricing Act. The State subsequently sued AutoZone under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), alleging that by violating the Pricing Act, AutoZone had also violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. 44-1522(A) (Statute), which prohibits deceptive practices in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise. The superior court entered summary judgment for AutoZone. The court of appeals vacated the superior court and remanded. Among other things at issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Statute's Act Clause, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise, or the Omission Clause, which prohibits omission of material facts with intent that others rely on such omissions, governed the State's non-pricing claims. The Court vacated the court of appeals, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly held that neither side was entitled to summary judgment, as the question of whether AutoZone had the intent required by the CFA was an issue of fact, regardless of whether the Act or the Omission Clause applied to the non-pricing allegations; (2) the CFA did not authorize disgorgement to the State; and (3) the court of appeals erred by awarding the State interlocutory attorney's fees. View "State ex rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc." on Justia Law

Thirteen years ago, the Government sued several cigarette manufacturers (Defendants) and related industry organizations for civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suit asserted that Defendants had conspired to deceive consumers about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking, seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of $280 billion in profits. In this latest round of the lawsuit, Defendants challenged the district court's refusal to vacate injunctions imposed in 2009. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err when it found Defendants were reasonably likely to commit future RICO violations despite the passage of the Tobacco Control Act; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it refused to vacate its injunctions under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Thirteen years ago, the Government sued several tobacco companies for civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suit asserted that Defendants had conspired to deceive consumers about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking, seeking, among other things, injunctive relief. The district court granted injunctive relief against the tobacco companies to prevent future RICO violations. The injunction included provisions requiring Appellants to make disclosure to the Government of various marketing data. The parties were unable to agree on the parameters of the disclosure requirement. The district court determined (1) the companies were required to furnish the full range of disaggregated marketing data sought by the Government under its understanding of the injunction; and (2) the Government could disclose the data to other governmental entities subject to the confidentiality provisions in the final order. The tobacco companies sought an interlocutory appeal, claiming that the clarification of the injunction actually effected a modification of the requirements. The D.C. Circuit Court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the district court did not modify the injunction. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

In a suit alleging engine defects in Volkswagen and Audi vehicles, the district court awarded $30 million in attorneys' fees to several groups of plaintiffs' attorneys who achieved a class action settlement agreement. The award was based in federal law. The First Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded for calculation using Massachusetts law. In a diversity suit, where the settlement agreement expressly states that the parties have not agreed on the source of law to apply to the fee award and there is an agreement that the defendants will pay reasonable fees, state law governs the fee award. View "Volkswagen Grp of Am. v. McNulty Law Firm" on Justia Law

The district court presided over four class action cases. Two insurance companies (collectively, Defendants) were the defendants in the two underlying cases. Allianz Life Insurance Company (Allianz) was a defendant in the other cases. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs opposed and attached a declaration by Dr. Craig McCann to support their theories. When Defendants moved to exclude the opinion, the court appointed an expert witness, Dr. Zvi Bodie, to evaluate Dr. McCann's opinion. The district court ordered Dr. Bodie's report sealed until it determined whether the report was admissible. In its case, Allianz filed a motion for summary judgment and a Daubert motion to exclude Dr. McCann. Defendants settled with the plaintiffs before the district court ruled on the Daubert or summary judgment motions. Allianz subsequently intervened in the underlying cases and requested the unsealing of Dr. Bodie's report. The district court denied its motion, ruling that the presumption in favor of public access to judicial records did not apply to the records at issue because they were attached to a non-dispositive Daubert motion. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to grant the motion, because the records at issue were filed in connection with pending summary judgment motions. View "Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N.A." on Justia Law

Pursuant to its authority to regulate "unfair and deceptive" practices in the airline industry, the Department of Transportation issued a final rule entitled "Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections." Spirit Airlines and others challenged three of the rule's provisions. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petitions for review, holding (1) the requirement that the most prominent figure displayed on print advertisements and websites be the total price, inclusive of taxes, was not arbitrary and capricious or a violation of the First Amendment; (2) the requirement that airlines allow consumers who purchase their tickets more than a week in advance the option of canceling their reservations without penalty for twenty-four hours following purchase was not arbitrary and capricious; and (3) the prohibition against increasing the price of air transportation and baggage fees after consumers purchase their tickets was not procedurally unlawful or otherwise arbitrary and capricious. View "Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp. " on Justia Law