Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published by “Maurice Wutscher LLP”

The attorneys of Maurice Wutscher are seasoned business lawyers with substantial experience in business law, financial services litigation and regulatory compliance. They represent consumer and commercial financial services companies, including depository and non-depository mortgage lenders and servicers, as well as mortgage loan investors, financial asset buyers and sellers, loss mitigation companies, third-party debt collectors, and other financial services providers. They have defended scores of putative class actions, have substantial experience in federal appellate court litigation and bring substantial trial and complex bankruptcy experience. They are leaders and influencers in their highly specialized area of law. They serve in leadership positions in industry associations and regularly publish and speak before national audiences.

Calif. App. Court (4th Dist) Rejects Borrowers’ Claims Arising Out of Regulator’s Unlicensed Lending Action

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, recently held two borrowers’ allegations that their lender was not properly licensed were insufficient to establish an actual economic injury, necessary for standing under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, and that there was no private right of action under California Financial Code sections 22100 and 22751.

8th Cir. Rejects Challenge to Advertised Discounts as ‘Deceptive’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a putative class action challenging an advertised discount as supposedly deceptive. In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit held that the named plaintiff's allegations failed to meet the "ascertainable loss" requirement under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

11th Cir. Holds ‘Actual Damages’ Not Required for ‘Willful’ Violations of FCRA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a trial court's denial of a motion for class certification was an abuse of discretion because the trial court’s analysis of Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement was based on its erroneous interpretation of the second option in section 1681n(a)(1)(A) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act as requiring a showing of actual damages.

10th Cir. Rejects Warehouse Lenders’ Attempt to Split Claims Under Auditor’s Policy

In an action brought by two warehouse lenders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that multiple negligent audits of the mortgage lender borrower were “interrelated” under an auditor’s insurance policy and that the claim of one warehouse lender was “interrelated” with the claim of the other warehouse lender when they arose from the same audit.

Illinois App. Court (5th Dist) Rejects Borrower’s Challenge to Foreclosure Based on Error in Prior Foreclosure

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, recently held that, because the defendant borrowers failed to file their petition for relief from a foreclosure judgment in the same proceeding in which the allegedly void order was entered, as required under Illinois procedural rules, the petition should have been dismissed without prejudice.

7th Cir. Rejects CAFA Removal Under ‘Internal-Affairs’ and ‘Home-State Controversy’ Exceptions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a putative class action removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act lacked federal jurisdiction because it fell within CAFA’s "internal-affairs" and "home-state controversy" exceptions.

Illinois App. Court (2d Dist) Upholds Dismissal of FDCPA Claims as Demand Letter Indicated Debt Was Commercial

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed the dismissal of a claim for supposed violations of the federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act where the consumer plaintiff failed to allege facts that the money sought to be collected was a “debt” as defined by section 1692a(5) of the FDCPA, and the demand letter from the defendant law firm indicated that the debt was commercial in nature.

2nd Cir. Reverses Class Settlement Citing Various Errors Under Rule 23, CAFA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently reversed a trial court's approval of a settlement in a class action case because the trial court presumed the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed settlement on the grounds the settlement was negotiated to at arm's-length failed to assess the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the agreed to attorneys’ fees and incentive payment, and erred in determining the class relief did not constitute "coupons" under the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Rejects Borrowers’ Allegations of Fraudulent Reverse Mortgage Scheme

In an action by a group of borrowers who alleged a fraudulent reverse mortgage scheme, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed the trial court’s judgment against the borrowers, and held that neither the discovery rule nor the continuing violation rule tolled the five-year statute of limitations for the borrowers’ declaratory judgment claims, making them untimely.