InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court certifies class suing Department of Education over borrower defense claims
On October 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class of borrowers who allegedly applied for student loan relief based on their higher education institution’s misconduct but have yet to receive a decision from the Department of Education. The borrowers allege that the Department has arbitrarily and capriciously stonewalled its own process for adjudicating the borrowers’ defense claims under the Higher Education Act, which “allows the Department to cancel a student federal loan repayment based on a school’s misconduct.” The borrowers claim the Department has failed to decide a borrower defense claim since June 2018. According to the borrowers—former students of for-profit schools with claims dating back to 2015—“the Department’s inaction continues to cause putative class members ongoing harm.” The Department argued, however, that the class should not be certified because the borrowers’ claims rely too much on individual circumstances and fail to prove a “systemic policy of inaction[.]” The court disagreed and certified the class, stating that the borrowers “have identified a single uniform policy—namely, the Department’s alleged ‘blanket refusal’ to adjudicate borrower defenses—which ‘bridges all their claims.’” Moreover, the court noted that “this alleged uniform policy is supported by the undisputed fact that the Department has failed to adjudicate a single borrower defense claim in over a year.” The class does not include borrowers who are part of a separate action filed against the Department (covered by InfoBytes here).
District Court approves $12.5 million settlement in TCPA class action
On October 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval of a $12.5 million TCPA class action settlement between a group of consumers and three cruise lines and their marketing group (collectively, “defendants”). According to the opinion, a consumer filed the action against the defendants alleging they violated the TCPA’s prohibition of the use of an autodialer without prior consent. While the motion for class certification was pending, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle for a class-wide settlement. The settlement requires the defendants to, among other things, set up a common fund of $12.5 million to permit each claimant to “recover for up to three calls per telephone number, with a maximum value for each call set at $300.” The court noted that after deducting attorneys’ fees, other costs, and an incentive award for the principal plaintiff, the nearly 275,000 class members will be eligible to receive an average of about $22 per claim. The court noted that while $22 is “significantly below the $500 recovery available under the statute for each call… a settlement does not need to provide the class with the maximum possible damages in order to be reasonable.” The court went on to state that the settlement “still serves the purpose of punishing [the cruise lines] for their role in the controversy,” and the total settlement fund is a “deterrent to potential future defendants who might think twice about violating the TCPA in an effort to boost business.”
11th Circuit: District Court erred in denying class certification over bankruptcy preemption defense
On October 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court decision denying class certification, concluding the court erred in its determination that each FDCPA and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) claim’s individualized inquiries predominated over issues common to the proposed class. According to the opinion, two plaintiffs filed a class action against their mortgage servicer alleging the servicer violated the FDCPA and the FCCPA by sending monthly mortgage statements after the debt was discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and they moved out of the home. The servicer objected to class certification that included both consumers who vacated their homes and those who remained in their homes because the Bankruptcy Code treats the two groups differently, thus requiring an individualized review to decide how the rules would be applied. Additionally, the servicer argued that the court would be required to decide whether the Bankruptcy Code precluded or preempted the claims for only class members who chose to remain in their homes. The district court denied class certification, concluding that individualized claims predominated over common issues, because “the question of ‘whether the Bankruptcy Code precluded and/or preempted the FDCPA and FCCPA’ presented an individualized rather than a common issue.”
On appeal, the 11th Circuit disagreed. The appellate court noted that the district court erred when it concluded that the question of whether the Bankruptcy Code precluded or preempted the FDCPA only applied to those consumers who chose to remain in their homes, because the preemption defense “potentially barred every class member’s FDCPA claim,” thus requiring the court to treat it as a common issue. The appellate court made a similar determination for the FCCPA claims. The appellate court cautioned that its conclusion was not an opinion about whether the servicer’s “defense is meritorious,” but was “limited to the conclusion that [the] defense raises questions common to all class members.” The appellate court, therefore, vacated and remanded the case back to district court.
Class action over mortgage modification denial error moves forward
On October 18, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted in part a national bank’s motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs’ claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) to move forward. According to the opinion, in 2011, a national bank denied the plaintiffs’ mortgage modification, and in 2012, the plaintiffs’ home was foreclosed upon. In August 2018, the national bank disclosed that approximately 625 mortgage modification applications were improperly denied due to a calculation error in the bank’s software. The bank informed the plaintiffs of the error, provided a check for $15,000, and after mediation, paid the plaintiffs another $25,000. The plaintiffs filed a class action against the bank, asserting claims for violation of the WCPA and unjust enrichment. The bank moved to dismiss the action, arguing, among other things, that the WCPA claim was an “impermissible attempt to enforce the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which creates no private right of action.” The court disagreed with the bank, determining that while the mortgage modification application was filed pursuant to HAMP, the plaintiffs “do not seek to enforce HAMP.” Instead, the plaintiffs argue that the wrongful denial of their application and failure to disclose the calculation error for three years “constitutes unfair or deceptive conduct in violation of the [WCPA].” The court concluded that the WCPA claim “is not an improper attempt to enforce” HAMP, as HAMP is merely “a ‘component’ of the [WCPA] claim.” The court went on to grant the bank’s motion to dismiss as to the unjust enrichment claim, while granting the plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint.
District Court denies MSJ because of ambiguities in bank’s ATM fee contract language
On October 7, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied a national bank’s motion for partial summary judgment in a class action alleging the bank wrongfully charged ATM fees in violation of the bank’s standardized account agreement. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs filed the action asserting that the bank charges its customers two out-of-network (OON) fees when an account holder conducts a balance inquiry and then obtains a cash withdrawal at an OON ATM. The bank moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, arguing that the terms and conditions of the contract provide for the charge of a fee “for each balance inquiry, cash withdrawal, or funds transfer undertaken at a non-[bank] branded ATM.” After conducting a limited discovery on the breach of contract issue, the district court denied the bank’s motion, concluding there are “ambiguities regarding the contract terms.” Specifically, the court noted that contract documents describe a “Foreign ATM Fee” as “initiated at an ATM other than a [bank] ATM” and that it uses the singular term of “fee” while providing “no further explanation as to what ‘initiated’ means.” According to the court, there is “ambiguity in the term ‘initiate’ that is ‘susceptible to at least two reasonable alternative interpretations.’” Moreover, the court also concluded that certain onscreen warnings about the right to cancel caused “uncertainty and ambiguity” regarding the assessment of fees, and because there are ambiguities regarding the fee terms, the court could not conclude that the plaintiffs failed to prove a breach of contract.
District Court denies TCPA class certification involving collection calls placed to wrong number
On September 27, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied class certification in an action alleging violations of the TCPA, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and the FDCPA brought against two companies. The action alleged that defendants used an automated telephone dialing system (autodialer) to call the plaintiff’s cell phone using a “prerecorded voice” while trying to contact a different individual to collect an unpaid debt. The defendants allegedly called the plaintiff’s cell phone number—which was listed as the other individual’s home phone number but had been reassigned to the plaintiff—multiple times even after the plaintiff informed the defendants that they had the wrong phone number. The plaintiff alleged violations of the TCPA, claiming the defendants placed the calls without first obtaining prior express consent.
Among other arguments, the defendants challenged the proposed class definition, which included more than 9,000 non-customers who allegedly received calls from the defendants and were identified by a code that the plaintiff contended is assigned to calls made to “bad phone” numbers. According to the defendants, the plaintiff’s expert developed a process for “identify[ing] calls where [autodialed] calls and prerecorded messages were made to cell phones after a record documenting an event consistent with a wrong number and/or a request to stop calling.” However, the defendants argued, among other things, that there are many different reasons why a “bad phone” code could be assigned to an account, and that the plaintiff’s assertions do not “satisfy the clearly ascertainable standard,” which must be met for class certification.
“Indeed, when presented with similar evidence regarding ‘wrong number’ call log designations, this [c]ourt recognized that ‘in the debt collection industry ‘wrong number’ oftentimes does not mean non-consent because many customers tell agents they have reached the wrong number, though the correct number was called, as a way to avoid further debt collection,’” the court stated. “The difficulty in ascertaining this information is compounded by the fact that the phone numbers at issue were initially provided to [the defendants] by consenting customers.”
Class certification granted in FCRA suit against credit reporting agency
On October 1, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a plaintiff’s motion for class certification in an action against a national credit reporting agency for allegedly failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the plaintiffs’ credit reports, in violation of the FCRA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the credit reporting agency allegedly failed to delete all of the accounts associated with a defunct loan servicer, despite statements claiming to have done so in January 2015. As of October 2015, 125,000 accounts from the defunct loan servicer were still being reported, and the accounts were not deleted until April 2016. The class action alleges that the credit reporting agency violated the FCRA by continuing to report the past-due accounts, even after deleting portions of the positive payment history on the accounts. After the district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the credit reporting agency, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the lawsuit, holding that a “reasonable jury could conclude that [the credit reporting agency’s] continued reporting of [the account], either on its own, or coupled with the deletion of portions of [the consumer’s] positive payment history on the same loan, was materially misleading.”
In certifying a class of all persons whose credit report contained an account originated after January 21, 2015, from the defunct loan servicer, the district court concluded that the “Defendant’s failure to use maximum reasonable procedures to prevent the continued reporting of delinquent [loan servicer] accounts—presents a clear risk of material harm to Plaintiff’s concrete interest in accurate credit reporting.” The court rejected the credit reporting agency’s argument that the named plaintiff must prove standing on behalf of the entire class, determining that “for all the same reasons Plaintiff has standing, it’s at least possible that the unnamed class members also have standing.” Moreover, the court rejected the argument that damages should be an individual question because many class members “likely suffered no injury at all.” The court concluded that the fact that each class member may “collect slightly different amounts of statutory damages is insufficient, without more, to defeat a showing of predominance in this case.”
District Court dismisses investors’ data breach claims
On September 18, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a class action suit brought against an online payments firm and associated entities and individuals (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly misleading investors (plaintiffs) about a 2017 data breach. The court stated that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the defendants’ November 2017 announcement about the data breach was misleading because it “disclosed only a security vulnerability, rather than an actual security breach that potentially compromised” 1.6 million customers, which the plaintiffs contended was not actually disclosed until a month later when a follow-up statement was released. However, the court argued that the plaintiffs failed to show under the loss-causation theory that the defendants knew the breach affected 1.6 million customers when the company made its first statement, and contended that confidential witness statements provided by the plaintiffs from three former employees did not credibly support allegations that the defendants and its executives knew the full extent of the breach when they warned of potential vulnerabilities or “used that knowledge (or recklessly disregarded it) to deceive the market.” Furthermore, the court determined that while both parties agreed that a plaintiff can support a securities fraud claim with expert opinions, the plaintiffs in this case failed to allege that the cybersecurity expert they hired was familiar with, or had knowledge of, the defendants’ specific security setup or that he actually talked to the defendants’ employees about the breach. According to the court, the expert provided an opinion on “what likely would have happened in the event of any breach.”
District Court dismisses suit claiming banks evading Iran sanctions
On September 16, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed an action alleging 10 financial institutions (defendants) conspired to evade U.S. sanctions on financial and business dealings with Iran, resulting in the direct and indirect material support for terrorism. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs—a group of veterans who served in Iraq from 2004 to 2011 and were injured or killed by terrorist attacks during that time—alleged that the defendants conspired with the Government of Iran, and multiple state-affiliated and private Iranian entities that work with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s (IRGC) and Hezbollah’s terrorist activities, to evade U.S. sanctions and conduct illicit trade-finance transactions, which helped to facilitate Iran’s provision of material support to terrorist activities. The defendants moved to dismiss the action and, in July 2018, a magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the motions be denied in their entirety.
On review, the district court declined to adopt the R&R and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ allegations indicate that Iran conspired to provide material support to the terrorist organizations, but failed to establish that the defendants “agreed to provide illegal financial services to Iranian financial and commercial entities . . . with the intent that those services would ultimately benefit a terrorist organization.” Moreover, the court reasoned that “it is up to Congress, and not the judiciary, to authorize terrorism victims to recover damages for their injuries from financial institutions that conspire with state sponsors of terrorism like Iran to evade U.S. sanctions under circumstances such as those presented in this case.”
Illinois Appeals Court vacates $4.3 million FACTA class action settlement
On September 6, the Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, vacated a circuit court’s $4.3 million settlement in a class action brought against a merchant for allegedly violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) when it printed the first six and last four digits of customers’ 16-digit credit card account numbers on receipts. The appeals court held, among other things, that the “record is devoid of facts that would have permitted a reasoned judgment that the class settlement was fair, reasonable and in the best interests of all affected.” Under FACTA, merchants are prohibited from including on a receipt more than the last five digits of a consumer’s credit card number, and a credit card’s expiration date. A class action suit claiming the merchant violated the restriction was originally filed in New York federal court, but the preliminarily approved settlement was later dismissed after objectors argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The named plaintiff requested dismissal of the federal action and subsequently filed suit immediately after in Illinois state court, asking the court to adopt a settlement agreement identical to the one that had been preliminarily approved by the federal court. The objector appealed once again, challenging, among other things, (i) the named plaintiff’s ability to adequately represent the settlement class; (ii) the original class notice, which she argued was insufficient to cover the state court settlement; and (iii) the “fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the ‘coupon settlement,’” in which class members received $12 merchant gift cards, while the named plaintiff received $4,000 and class counsel was awarded $500,000.
On appeal, the appeals court disagreed with the objector’s contention that the named plaintiff lacked standing to represent the class because he kept his receipt and therefore had not been injured under FACTA, but found “a number of red flags” regarding the sub-class of more than 350,000 members of the merchant’s loyalty program, questioning whether the named plaintiff was an adequate representative for those class members since there was nothing in the record indicating whether he was a member of the program. Moreover, the appeals court agreed with the objector that the original class notice provided under the federal settlement did not sufficiently protect the due process rights of the settlement class, and that “due process requires the giving of notice anew of the pending state court settlement to absent class members so that they have the opportunity to protect their own interests.” The appeals court remanded the case to allow the trial court to more carefully scrutinize the terms of the settlement, stating that “we are unable to determine whether the trial court evaluated the merits of the cause of action, the prospects and problems of litigating the cause or the fairness of the terms of compromise.” The appeals court also ordered the trial court to further explain its findings that the $500,000 attorneys’ fee award and $4,000 lead plaintiff award are reasonable given the possibility that not every class member will use the coupon.