InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit: Payday arbitration remanded because of new California interest rate law
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded a case against a payday lender back to district court because a newly issued California amendment took effect—which prohibits lenders from issuing loans between $2,500 and $10,000 with charges over 36 percent calculated as an annual simple interest rate (covered by InfoBytes here)—which may impact the court’s analysis. As also previously covered by InfoBytes, plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit against the payday lender alleging the lender sells loans with usurious interest rates, which are prohibited under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The lender moved to compel arbitration, but the district court concluded the arbitration provision was unenforceable. In addition to finding the arbitration provisions procedurally unconscionable, the court found that the provision contained a waiver of public injunctive relief, which was substantively unconscionable based on the California Supreme Court decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A (covered by a Buckley Special Alert here).
On appeal, the 9th Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to reconsider whether the consumer’s requested injunction enjoining the payday lender from issuing loans above $10,000 would actually prevent a threat of future harm in light of the new California law and considering the operative complaint does not allege the lender issued or continues to issue loans above $10,000. Additionally, the appellate court rejected the lender’s arguments that McGill was preempted under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and agreed with the district court’s application of California law, because “Kansas law is contrary to California policy and [] California holds a materially greater interest in this litigation.”
D.C. Circuit says consumer failed to show injury in FDCPA action
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of a consumer, concluding that the consumer failed to demonstrate a concrete injury-in-fact traceable to the FDCPA violations she alleged. According to the opinion, the consumer brought the putative class action against the debt collector after the collector sued the consumer to collect an outstanding auto loan debt. The collector allegedly used affidavits in its lawsuit against the consumer that were signed by an agent of the collector, not by an employee as attested. As requested by the debt collector, the action was then dismissed with prejudice. Subsequently, the consumer filed the putative class action against the debt collector and its agent alleging various violations of the FDCPA. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, which the district court denied. Subsequently, the district court granted their motion for summary judgment, concluding that any “any falsehoods in the [] affidavits were immaterial—and thus not actionable—because they ‘had no effect on [the consumer]’s ability to respond or to dispute the debt.’”
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the district court, concluding that the consumer lacked standing to sue the defendants altogether. Specifically, the appellate court held that the consumer failed to identify a traceable injury to the “false representations” made in the affidavits, citing to the fact that the consumer “testified unequivocally that she neither took nor failed to take any action because of these statements.” Moreover, citing to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the appellate court emphasized that “[n]othing in the FDCPA suggests that every violation of the provisions implicated here…create[] a cognizable injury.” The appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
7th Circuit upholds summary judgment in favor of debt collector
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a third-party debt collector in a class action asserting violations of the FDCPA. According to the opinion, a consumer filed a putative class action alleging the debt collector sent a misleading letter in violation of the FDCPA because the letter stated that her debt “may be reported to the national credit bureaus.” The consumer argued that the use of the word “may” was deceptive, as it implied “future reporting” even though the debt had already been reported at the time she received the letter. The debt collector moved to dismiss the action, which the district court denied, concluding that whether a communication is misleading is a question of fact and therefore, “dismissal would be premature.” After class certification, the consumer and the debt collector submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district affirmed in favor of the debt collector.
On cross-appeals, the 7th Circuit agreed with the district court’s denial of the debt collector’s motion to dismiss, stating that “[w]hether a significant fraction of debtors would be misled as [the consumer] describes is questionable, but it is not so implausible….” As for summary judgment, the appellate court also agreed with the district court, concluding that the consumer “failed to present any evidence beyond her own opinion” that the collection letter was misleading. The appellate court rejected the consumer’s assertion that her own opinion was evidence enough and noted that the consumer cited to cases using the “least sophisticated consumer standard,” which the 7th Circuit has rejected. Moreover, the appellate court emphasized that the consumer failed “to provide any outside evidence as to the likelihood that a hypothetical unsophisticated debtor (or even the least sophisticated debtor) would in fact be confused by the language in [the debt collector]’s letter.”
3rd Circuit: Credit card customers’ claims against retailer and national bank fail
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a retailer and a national bank (collectively, “defendants”), holding that the proposed class failed to assert their claims for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. The class, comprised of customers who applied for private-label credit cards offered and serviced by the retailer, argued they were prompted to purchase a debt-cancellation product, which would “cancel the balance on the customer’s account up to $10,000 when a covered person experienced a qualifying involuntary unemployment, disability, hospitalization, or loss of life.” The class’s first claim—that the debt cancellation product provided “‘little or no value,” and that they did not voluntarily enroll in the product because the retailer allegedly unilaterally enrolled card holders in the product—was no longer viable after discovery showed that customers voluntarily enrolled. The class posed a second claim asserting breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, arguing, among other things, that any legal authorization they gave was to the retailer and to the original issuing bank who sold the cards to the defendant bank. However, the district court rejected this second theory and granted summary judgement in favor of the defendants, ruling that the debt cancellation product was assigned to the defendant bank and stating the class failed to show that the retailer did not honor the terms of the debt cancellation product because they received exactly what was described in their contracts. Nor were the defendants unjustly enriched “because their collection of [] fees was ‘legally justified.’”
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit, among other things, reviewed and rejected a third theory presented by the class, which blamed the district court for fundamentally misinterpreting their claims and asserted that the retailer failed to notify customers that it had stopped enforcing certain terms of the debt cancellation product and implemented a new refund policy, holding that this theory was not grounds for reversal because it was not argued in court. Moreover, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the retailer stopped enforcing its rights under amendments made to the debt cancellation product, but did not change the formal terms.
7th Circuit holds recoverable costs under FDCPA do not include damages or compensation for expenses
On June 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that the costs recoverable under the FDCPA and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not include damages or compensation for the plaintiff’s time and mailing expenses related to litigation. According to the opinion, the plaintiff filed suit against a debt collector alleging various violations of the FDCPA for failing to verify that the plaintiff owned the debt after it was disputed and for sending a demand letter with the plaintiff’s personal information in an envelope viewing screen. The debt collector made an offer of judgment to the plaintiff for “$1,101, ‘plus costs to be awarded by the Court.’” The plaintiff sought costs that included damages under the FDCPA while the debt collector argued that the offer was only for “taxable costs as a prevailing party.” After the district court concluded that the plaintiff had accepted the offer of judgment, it entered judgment for the award of $1,101 and instructed the plaintiff to file a bill of costs “‘limited to those contemplated by [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 54(d).’” The plaintiff demanded over $24,000 for “hundreds of hours” spent litigating the action, over $150 in “mailing costs,” $1,000 in “additional damage costs,” and over $47,000 in punitive damages. The district court denied the costs under Rule 54(d) and awarded final judgment for the $1,101 in statutory damages.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion that the costs he submitted were recoverable under Section 1692k(a) of the FDCPA, concluding that “damages are not part of the costs ‘properly awardable under’ § 1692k(a),” which contains both provisions for damages and for costs; therefore, if costs included damages, “the damages provisions would be superfluous.” The appellate court went on to state that “[w]ithout a special definition in the [FDCPA], the ‘costs’ it contemplates are simply those awardable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d),” which do not include the damages or compensation sought by the plaintiff.
9th Circuit upholds TCPA liability for reassigned number
On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment in a TCPA action against a bank, concluding that consent from the person intended to call does not exempt the bank from liability under the TCPA. According to the opinion, the bank’s vendors made over 180 automated calls to a child’s cell phone in attempt to collect past-due payments from a customer who used to have the same cell phone number, which had since been reassigned to the child’s mother. The customer of the bank had given consent to be called, but the mother and child had not. After a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the TCPA claim, concluding that the bank could not escape liability under the TCPA because the customer it intended to call had given consent, and awarding $500 in statutory damages for each of the 189 unwanted calls, for a total of $94,500.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment after the jury trial. The appellate court noted it was “agreeing with other circuits,” on liability when it concluded that the district court “properly instructed the jury that consent from the intended recipient of the call was not sufficient.” Moreover, the appellate court held that the district court properly instructed the jury on the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system,” based on the panel’s decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC (covered by InfoBytes here). Lastly, the appellate court also issued an opinion affirming the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff.
7th Circuit: CRAs not required to determine legal validity of disputed debt
On May 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a putative class action, holding that the FCRA does not compel a consumer reporting agency (defendant) to determine the legal validity of a debt when investigating a dispute. The plaintiffs alleged that they obtained payday loans with allegedly usurious interest rates from online entities affiliated with Native American tribes. After both plaintiffs stopped making monthly payments, the lenders reported the delinquent amounts to the defendant. One of the plaintiffs disputed the accuracy of his credit report, arguing that because the loan was “illegally issued” he was not obligated to make payments. The defendant conducted an investigation and verified the furnished information was accurate. However, the defendant did not investigate whether the debt was legal. The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging two FCRA violations: (i) Section 1681e(b) which requires consumer reporting agencies “to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” contained in credit reports; and (ii) Section 1681i(a) which “requires consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate disputed items.” According to the plaintiffs, the defendant’s credit reports “contained ‘legally inaccurate’ information because they posted ‘legally invalid debts.’” The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the defendant, ruling that the plaintiffs’ FCRA claims fell short because they never alleged that the information that was reported was factually inaccurate and, “until a formal adjudication invalidates the plaintiffs’ loans,” the reported information would not be factually inaccurate.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit held, among other things, that only furnishers—“such as banks, credit lenders, and collection agencies”—are required under the FCRA to correctly report liability, stating it is not the defendant’s responsibility to determine the enforceability of the debt because the “power to resolve these legal issues exceeds the competencies of consumer reporting agencies.” Moreover, the appellate court determined that the defendant cannot be liable under either of the plaintiffs’ FCRA claims if it did not report inaccurate information.
6th Circuit denies stay of injunction against PPP Ineligibility Rule
On May 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the SBA’s emergency motion for a stay of the district court’s injunction against the agency’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Ineligibility Rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against the SBA’s PPP Ineligibility Rule—which, in relevant part, excludes from PPP loan eligibility “sexually oriented businesses that present entertainment or sell products of a ‘prurient’ (but not unlawful) nature.” The district court concluded that the Rule was in conflict with the Congressional purpose of the CARES Act, which houses the PPP, to protect workers in need during the Covid-19 pandemic, including workers for businesses that have been historically excluded from SBA financial assistance.
The 6th Circuit agreed with the district court, denying the motion for a stay. The court noted that the CARES Act specifies that eligibility “is conferred on ‘any business concern,’” which “encompasses sexually oriented businesses.” It went on to state that “the public interest is served in guaranteeing that any business, including plaintiffs, receive loans to protect and support their employees during the pandemic.”
In dissent, one judge argued that it is “unclear whether Congress meant that any business concern was eligible for a PPP loan regardless of SBA restrictions,” and therefore, the injunction should be stayed pending a decision on the merits.
6th Circuit holds condo company and law firm did not act as debt collectors in non-judicial foreclosure
On May 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a condominium management company, condominium association, and its law firm (collectively, “defendants”) acted as “security-interest enforcers” and not debt collectors and therefore, did not violate the FDCPA. According to the opinion, the homeowners lost their condominium to a non-judicial foreclosure after they fell behind on condominium association dues. The homeowners filed suit against the defendants alleging various violations of the FDCPA during the foreclosure process. The homeowners did not assert a violation of Section 1692f(6), which applies to security-interest enforcers. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that the homeowners failed to allege facts that the defendants did more than act as security-interest enforcers.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit agreed, citing to the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, which held that parties who assist creditors with the non-judicial foreclosure of a home fall within the separate definition under Section 1692f(6) as security-interest enforcers and not the general debt collector definition (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The appellate court noted that the homeowners’ complaint did not allege the defendants’ regular business activity was debt collection. Moreover, the appellate court rejected the homeowners’ argument that the defendants recording of a lien on their condo was a step beyond enforcing a security interest. According to the court, Michigan law requires the recording of the lien in order to enforce a security-interest and therefore, the action “falls squarely within Obduskey’s central holding.”
7th Circuit: Bank avoids breach of contract claims in HAMP loan modification offer
On April 30, in a split opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision affirming a district court order holding that a consumer’s claims against a bank failed because the bank never counter-signed the Trial Period Plan (TPP) it offered the consumer in connection with the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP). According to the opinion, the consumer signed his name to the TPP and returned the TPP to the bank along with what the consumer believed to be the other required documents and the first of this three payments. However, the bank never returned a fully executed copy of the TPP to the consumer. Instead, it sent the consumer multiple notices stating that necessary documentation was still missing. Ultimately, the consumer made all three payments required by the TPP, but never received a permanent modification of his loan. On that basis, the consumer filed suit, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to the bank’s alleged failure to honor its loan-modification offer. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the bank and denied the plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint, concluding, among other things, that the consumer failed to state a plausible claim for relief.
On appeal, the majority agreed with the district court, holding, among other things, that the bank never actually agreed to modify the consumer’s mortgage under HAMP. Specifically, the majority stated that “[i]f an offer contains a conditional precedent, a contract does not form until the condition is satisfied,” referencing language in which the bank reserved the right not to send the consumer a counter-signed copy of the Trial Period Plan (TPP) if the borrower did not qualify for HAMP relief. Because the TPP never went into effect, it imposed no contractual obligations on the bank.