In a “hybrid wage-and-hour” action brought by mortgage loan officers (MLOs), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently: 1) reiterated its prior holding that “an FLSA opt-in collective action is not, by its nature, incompatible with a parallel state law Rule 23 opt-out class action”, and 2) held that the trial court should not have required a trial in the FLSA opt-in collective action before deciding Rule 23 class certification on the parallel state-law claims.
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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s grant of a debtor’s motion for summary judgment allowing the debtor to void a mortgage under the “strong arm” provision of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, recently held that substitute service can be effected under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure when the summons is left with an adult with a cognitive impairment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, en banc, recently affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court’s partial grant and partial denial of a bank’s motion to dismiss the City of Oakland’s claims under the federal Fair Housing Act.
The Supreme Court of Illinois recently held that a homeowner’s insurance company could not deduct depreciation from reimbursements for labor costs from the actual cash value of a covered loss, because the policy at issue did not specifically and unambiguously allow the practice.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed lower court rulings that a bankrupt debtor was entitled to receive damages and attorneys’ fees for a creditor's violation of the automatic stay in bankruptcy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed judgment in a debt collector’s favor against claims that its efforts to collect attorney’s fees incurred to collect a debt — including the fees incurred in collecting the attorney’s fees — violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed and remanded a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court's denial of class certification, concluding that (1) the plaintiffs' nationwide class action complaint alleged violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, and thus rebuttal evidence was permitted; (2) the defendant company had evidence challenging the extent to which each plaintiff allegedly relied on the alleged omissions; and (3) individualized findings on reliance were therefore required, which would likely lead to multiple mini-trials within the class action.
The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, recently denied a petition for writ of mandate on the merits, concluding that California Labor Code section 229 did not exempt the plaintiff loan processor's wage claim from arbitration.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on a consumer’s claim that the defendant violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint alleging supposed violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act for placing a job recruitment “robocall” to the plaintiff’s cell phone.