InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court grants defendant’s summary judgment in TCPA case
On June 6, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a national bank’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment in a case alleging it violated the TCPA by placing unwanted telephone calls and text messages. According to the order, the plaintiff filed suit in April 2021, alleging the defendant called him 88 times without his consent regarding a debt using an automated dialing system in violation of the TCPA. The court found that the plaintiff had given his consent to be contacted when he signed a signature card for his account that included his number. The court noted that his consent permitted the defendant “to use text messaging, artificial or prerecorded voice messages and automatic dialing technology for informational and account service calls, but not for telemarketing or sales calls.” The court further concluded that “prior express consent permits a creditor to contact a debtor by any telephonic means,” and emphasized that the “TCPA is not intended to stop a bank from calling its customers, but rather to stop telemarketers from making random, sequentially generated ‘robocalls’ to consumers who do not wish to receive them.”
District Court dismisses suit alleging improper inspection fees
On June 6, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a defendant bank’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff’s inspection fee allegations are barred on collateral estoppel grounds. The plaintiff filed a class action suit claiming the defendant’s computer software orders property inspections after borrowers’ loans are in default and then charges borrowers for the improper inspection fees. According to the opinion, the defendant initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2012 against the plaintiff in state court after she missed payments. The parties litigated the matter for several years in state court, and in 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to add class action claims related to the defendant’s inspection fee collection system. The state court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding the proposed claims to be without merit and futile. Final judgment of foreclosure was granted to the bank. Similar proceedings involving the same class action counterclaims occurred after the defendant requested that the judgment be vacated to add an additional lien holder as a defendant. The defendant again applied for entry of final judgment, but withdrew this application allegedly in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Ultimately the state court dismissed the foreclosure action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The plaintiff filed an instant complaint in federal court.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff “should be collaterally estopped from bringing these claims because the New Jersey Superior Court ruled on the exact issues [plaintiff] raises here in the prior foreclosure action brought by [defendant] against [plaintiff] in state court, ultimately dismissing them with prejudice.” The plaintiff countered “that because the foreclosure action was dismissed without entry of judgment, collateral estoppel does not apply.” In agreeing with the defendant, the court stated that “the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies whenever an action is ‘sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect,” adding that the state court’s orders in the foreclosure action are “sufficiently firm as to warrant conclusive effect.” According to the court, “[t]hese decisions—particularly the second dismissal with prejudice—were clearly intended to be the final adjudication of the precise issues that [plaintiff] is now attempting to relitigate in the instant action.”
District Court granted final approval of a $63 million data breach settlement
On June 7, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted final approval of a class action settlement resolving claims that a government agency and its contractor (collectively, defendants) did not detect hackers because they failed to establish reasonable safeguards that led to a data breach. According to the memorandum of law in support of the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, a data breach occurred in June 2015 that compromised financial records, Social Security numbers, and other personal information of anyone who underwent a background check at the agency since 2000. The agency allegedly controlled numerous electronic systems without valid authorizations, failed to implement multi-factor authentication for accessing systems, failed to patch, segment, and continuously monitor systems, and failed to implement centralized data security protocols. According to the plaintiff’s motion, the settlement (if granted final approval) would require the U.S. government to pay $60 million of the settlement fund and the contractor to pay $3 million. The settlement agreement provides that “[e]ach valid claim will be paid at $700, except that if the actual amount of documented loss exceeds $700, the claim will be paid in that amount, up to $10,000.”
District Court: Company must face data breach claims
On June 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that a health care company must face a proposed class action related to claims that its failure to implement cybersecurity safeguards led to a data breach that compromised individuals’ personal health information. In granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court declined to dismiss several of the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, ruling that the second amended complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant employed inadequate data security and that plaintiffs suffered an actual injury as a result of the data breach because the monitoring services offered by the defendant were insufficient and offered for too short of time causing certain plaintiffs to purchase additional identity protection products and/or services. However, other negligence claims were dismissed after the court determined that some of the plaintiffs failed to allege any actual damages or out-of-pocket expenses. Additionally, while the court allowed several state law claims to proceed, it dismissed claims brought under the California Consumer Protection Act due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide the requisite pre-suit notice within the 30-day time period as required by law, finding the failure could not be cured by the passage of time. Other state law claims, involving violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, were also dismissed due to a failure to articulate cognizable losses.
Special Alert: Eleventh Circuit upholds terms of arbitration agreement in challenge under Dodd-Frank
On May 26, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a published decision holding that the Dodd-Frank Act does not prohibit the enforceability of delegation clauses contained in consumer arbitration agreements “in any way.” This opinion is of potentially broad significance in the class action and arbitration space since it is one of the first appellate decisions in the country concerning Dodd-Frank’s arbitration provision and supports broad enforcement of delegation clauses even where a statute could allegedly prohibit arbitration of the underlying claim.
In Attix v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denying Carrington’s motion to compel arbitration that was based on the plaintiff’s argument that the anti-waiver provision in the Dodd-Frank Act, prohibited enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The anti-waiver provision of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that “no other agreement between the consumer and the creditor relating to the residential mortgage loan or extension of credit . . . shall be applied or interpreted so as to bar a consumer from bringing an action in an appropriate district court of the United States.” The district court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the Dodd-Frank Act prohibited arbitration of the underlying dispute and in doing so, side-stepped the delegation clause that delegated such threshold determinations to an arbitrator.
In a 52-page published opinion, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision of the district court, holding that the Dodd-Frank Act does not prohibit enforcing delegation clauses, such as the clause at issue, which “clearly and unmistakably” delegates to the arbitrator “threshold arbitrability disputes.” The circuit court found that in such circumstances, all questions of arbitrability are delegated to an arbitrator “unless the law prohibits the delegation of threshold arbitrability issues itself.”
The court went on to broadly hold that the Dodd-Frank Act does not prohibit the enforceability of delegation clauses “in any way.” In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit explained that if Dodd-Frank had been intended to prohibit the enforcement of delegation clauses, then it could have been drafted that way, but instead, “the actual statute is silent as to who may decide whether a particular contract falls within the scope of its protections.” While the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits arbitration agreements from being applied or interpreted in a particular manner, it does not prohibit the enforcement of delegation clauses, and as a result, the court held that under the terms of Carrington and the plaintiff’s agreement, the arbitrator (and not the court) must determine the threshold question of whether the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits enforcement of Carrington’s arbitration agreement since it is a “quintessential arbitrability question.”
Significantly, the court also held that a challenge to an agreement to arbitrate on the basis that a statute precludes its enforcement is not a “specific challenge” to a delegation clause found within the arbitration agreement, such that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the enforceability of the delegation clause. In other words, where a challenge “is only about the enforceability of the parties’ primary arbitration agreement” and there is a delegation clause, “an arbitrator must resolve it.” As the Eleventh Circuit explained, “when an appeal presents a delegation agreement and a question of arbitrability, we stop. We do not pass go.”
This case has significance for anyone considering drafting an arbitration agreement particularly in a class action context. A threshold drafting question is whether or not to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator or allow a court to resolve the issue. Under this decision, a question of whether a statute bars arbitration of claims is for the arbitrator to decide when there is a delegation clause, unless the statute also explicitly bars delegation clauses. This decision reinforces that inclusion of a properly drafted delegation clause in an arbitration agreement can result in a case improperly filed in court being more quickly sent to arbitration, even where the dispute is whether a statute prohibits the claim from being arbitrated in the first instance.
Buckley represented Carrington on appeal with a team comprising Fredrick Levin, who argued the appeal, Scott Sakiyama, Brian Bartholomay, and Sarah Meehan. For questions regarding the case, please contact one of the team members or a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
District Court certifies TCPA class action against debt collector
On May 31, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a plaintiff’s motion for class certification in an action alleging a defendant debt collector placed unsolicited calls to borrowers’ cell phones when attempting to collect federal student loan debt. The plaintiff contended that the defendant violated the TCPA by calling her up to seven times a day without her consent using an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer) and prerecorded calls or artificial voice calls. According to the plaintiff, in 2019, the defendant obtained her cell phone number through skip-tracing services performed by one of its vendors. The defendant allegedly had access to a call recording from a 2017 conversation between a Department of Education contractor and the plaintiff during which the plaintiff provided her phone number. The defendant, however, allegedly was not aware of the recording nor did it seek to access the file until after the plaintiff filed suit. The defendant also supposedly received a file from the contractor containing the plaintiff’s number but not until after it already acquired the number from the skip-tracing vendor. The defendant denied that it used an autodialer or made prerecorded calls or artificial voice calls. The defendant also claimed that “because it had constructive access to the recording of plaintiff’s 2017 phone conversation with [the contractor] and received the [] file with plaintiff’s number, it had plaintiff’s prior express consent to receiving calls.”
The court certified the class, ruling that the question of whether access to the files in question was sufficient to confer consent under the TCPA is “a closer legal question, but not one that overcomes predominance at this stage.” According to the court, “the issue of whether defendant can show that its right of access to [the contractor’s] files constituted prior express consent is one that is currently capable of classwide resolution. Accordingly, while the affirmative defenses defendant presses will no doubt be important to the outcome of the litigation, they presently do not undercut the central common issues in this case.”
California Supreme Court: FTC Holder Rule does not limit attorney’s fees
On May 26, the California Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s ruling that the FTC’s Holder Rule does not limit liability for attorney’s fees. According to the opinion, the plaintiff bought a used vehicle from the dealership (defendant) pursuant to an installment sales contract, which was subsequently assigned to a bank that became the “holder” of the contract. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant and the bank, alleging misconduct by the dealership in the sale of the car regarding advertised features she needed due to a disability. A jury found for the plaintiff on one of her causes of action — breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and awarded her $21,957.25 in damages. The plaintiff filed a posttrial motion seeking attorney’s fees in the amount of $169,602 under the Song-Beverly Act. The bank argued that it could not be liable for attorney’s fees based on the provision of the Holder Rule limiting recovery to the “amount[] paid by the debtor.” The trial court disagreed and granted the plaintiff’s motion.
The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve a split among the appellate courts on whether ‘“recovery’ under the Holder Rule includes attorney’s fees and limits the amount of fees plaintiffs can recover from holders to amounts paid under the contract.” The opinion noted the divide among the state’s appellate courts on this issue, citing on the one hand Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc. (holding that the Holder Rule does not limit the attorney’s fees a plaintiff may recover), and on the other hand, Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (stating that a debtor cannot recover damages and attorney fees for a Holder Rule claim that collectively exceed the amount paid by the debtor under the contract) and Spikener v. Ally Financial, Inc., (finding that the Holder Rule preempts California Civil Code section 1459.5, which authorizes a plaintiff to recover attorney fees on a Holder Rule claim even if it results in a total recovery that exceeds the amount the plaintiff paid under the contract, covered by InfoBytes here).
On appeal, the California Supreme Court unanimously concluded that “the Holder Rule does not limit the award of attorney’s fees where, as here, a buyer seeks fees from a holder under a state prevailing party statute,” as opposed to seeking fees under the Holder Rule itself. Specifically, “[t]he Holder Rule’s limitation extends only to ‘recovery hereunder.’” The California Supreme Court continued that “[t]his caps fees only where a debtor asserts a claim for fees against a seller and the claim is extended to lie against a holder by virtue of the Holder Rule. Where state law provides for recovery of fees from a holder, the [Holder] Rule’s history and purpose as well as the Federal Trade Commission’s repeated commentary make clear that nothing in the Rule limits the application of that law.”
District Court preliminarily approves $2 million debt collection settlement over garnishment issuance fees
On May 24, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon preliminarily approved a class action settlement resolving claims concerning a debt collection agency’s $45 garnishment “issuance fee.” According to the plaintiffs, the defendant issued garnishments to debtors’ employers and banks through its in-house attorneys to collect revenue for outstanding debts. While Oregon law allows debt collectors to charge fees as a means of compensating for the expense of hiring attorneys who issue such garnishments, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s “$45 fee is an abuse of the cost recovery statute because using in-house attorneys relieves defendant from ever incurring such an expense.” The plaintiffs alleged violations of the FDCPA, Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and Oregon’s Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act. While the defendant denied any wrongdoing as part of the preliminarily approved settlement, it has agreed to pay $2 million to settle the claims. Class members, defined as more than 10,000 Oregonians allegedly injured by the $45 issuance fees between January 2018 and September 2019, will each receive “an amount three times greater than the actual damages caused originally by Defendant’s issuance fees.”
District Court enters consent order in 2016 CFPB structured settlement action
On May 18, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland approved a consent order against defendants in an action concerning allegedly unfair, abusive, and deceptive structured settlement practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2016 the Bureau initiated an enforcement action against the defendants alleging that they violated the CFPA by employing abusive practices when purchasing structured settlements from consumers in exchange for lump-sum payments. According to the Bureau, the defendants encouraged consumers to take advances on their structured settlements and falsely represented that the consumers were obligated to complete the structured settlement sale, “even if they [later] realized it was not in their best interest.” In July 2021, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the Bureau’s amended complaint, which argued that the enforcement action was barred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, which held that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional (covered by a Buckley Special Alert). The defendants had also argued that that the ratification of the enforcement action “came too late” because the statute of limitations on the CFPA claims had already expired (covered by InfoBytes here). Under the terms of the May 18 consent order, the individual defendant, who “had an ownership interest in [the company] and served in executive positions at [the defendants] from their inception to their dissolution" is prohibited from, among other things, participating or assisting others in participating in transfer of payment streams from structured-settlement holders and referring consumers to a specific individual or for-profit entity for advice concerning any structured-settlement transaction, including for independent professional advice. The individual defendant must also pay a $5,000 civil money penalty.
District Court issues judgment against student debt relief operation
On May 24, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against an individual defendant who participated in a deceptive debt-relief enterprise operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2019, the CFPB, along with the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney (together, the “states”), announced an action against the student loan debt relief operation for allegedly deceiving thousands of student-loan borrowers and charging more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. In the third amended complaint, the Bureau and the states alleged that since at least 2015 the debt relief operation violated the CFPA, TSR, FDCPA, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. In addition, the Bureau and the states claimed that the debt relief operation engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting, among other things: (i) the purpose and application of fees they charged; (ii) their ability to obtain loan forgiveness for borrowers; and (iii) their ability to actually lower borrowers’ monthly payments. Moreover, the debt relief operation allegedly failed to inform borrowers that it was their practice to request that the loans be placed in forbearance and also submitted false information to student loan servicers to qualify borrowers for lower payments. Under the terms of the final judgment, the individual defendant must pay a $483,662 civil money penalty to the Bureau.