On February 7, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied a motion by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the USDA seeking money damages for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). In moving to dismiss, the USDA argued that the FCRA claim was barred by federal sovereign immunity. However, the court rejected that argument, holding that the U.S. Government had waived its sovereign immunity from actions seeking monetary relief for FCRA violations. As a result, the court held, it had subject matter jurisdiction over the FCRA claim. See Jones v. United States Dep’t of Agric., No. 17-11530, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19886 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2018).
Author: Eric Epstein
Federal Court Orders Loan Servicer to Comply with CFPB’s CID Investigating Potential UDAAP and FCRA Violations
On February 28, 2018, a Pennsylvania federal district court granted a petition by the CFPB to enforce a CID against a student loan servicer to investigate potential Unfair, Deceptive or Abusive Acts or Practices or violations of FCRA in CFPB v. Heartland Campus Solutions, ECSI. The court applied the Supreme Court’s Morton Salt test applicable to investigative demands, and ruled in the CFPB’s favor, marking a court victory for the Mulvaney-led CFPB in investigative efforts to enforce a CID against the loan servicer.
It’s not every day that a federal court describes a regulation as “a ‘mongrel’ – with no offense to dogs.” But last week, that’s how a federal court characterized a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
On September 15, 2016, Dorsey partners David A. Scheffel, Eric Epstein, and Nicholas A. J. Vlietstra of Dorsey’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group gave a presentation on the bank examination privilege.
Eleventh Circuit Holds that Borrower’s TILA Claims Are Subject to Agreement’s Forum Selection Clause
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a borrower’s Truth-in-Lending-Act (“TILA”) claim fell within the scope of a loan agreement’s forum selection clause.
As previously reported on this blog, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) adopted a burden-shifting approach to assessing claims that housing policies cause disparate impact on minority populations in violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) (42 U.S.C. § 3601). By adopting that approach, the Court confirmed the availability of this form of lawsuit against government entities that implement housing policies.
A little over one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), which resolved a circuit court spit regarding how a mortgage borrower may exercise the right of rescission under the Truth-in-Lending-Act (“TILA”).
A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal held that the practice called “dual tracking” – when a lender forecloses on a property while the borrower’s application for a loan modification is under review – violates California’s Unfair Competition Law.
A recent decision by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals highlights some of the challenges lenders may face when seeking the dismissal of allegations of unfair and deceptive lending practices in connection with a loan that requires a balloon payment at the end of the loan’s term.
This new article co-authored by Dorsey partner Melissa Krasnow discusses the Canadian and U.S. compliance regimes regarding spam emails, text messages, and other spam communications. Consumer finance entities should be familiar with these rules, given the potential implications of these rules for communications with potential and current borrowers.
Dorsey partner Eric Epstein and Dorsey associate Augustine Lo wrote this recent article for The Real Estate Finance Journal regarding the new amendments to the HMDA regulation, Regulation C.
If a federal agency conducts a CRA audit and finds that a lender’s conduct is compliant with federal law, is the CFPB barred from subsequently alleging that the same conduct violates federal law?
The CFPB recently added a new feature to its Consumer Complaint Database: namely, consumers now have the option to publish “narratives” detailing their allegations against a company. The problem lies in the possibility that these hearsay “narratives” will be used against companies in connection with enforcement actions or lawsuits.