In a “doc prep fee UPL” class action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s rulings as to class certification and application of a choice-of-law provision on a class-wide basis. In so ruling, the Court also reversed and remanded the lower court’s determination that the attorney’s fees for the class counsel should be paid solely from the common fund in light of the fee shifting provision in the contract. A copy of the opinion in Robert McKeage v. TMBC, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. The named class plaintiffs purchased a boat…
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.
In an unreported ruling, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of a borrower’s federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) claim that the mortgage servicer failed to confirm receipt of the plaintiff’s request for information because the servicer’s signed certified mail receipt qualified as confirmation of receipt under the statute. Importantly, the Eleventh Circuit also held that the plaintiff’s RESPA claim for statutory damages failed to allege an injury in fact under Spokeo. A copy of the opinion in Meeks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. A borrower’s attorney sent the…
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of a mortgagee that failed to meet the FHA requirement to either have a face-to-face meeting with the borrowers or to make “a reasonable effort” to arrange a face-to-face meeting before filing foreclosure, because doing so would have been a futile act after the borrowers’ mortgage loan debt was discharged in bankruptcy and they did not reaffirm the debt. A copy of the opinion in PNC Bank National Ass’n v. Wilson is available at: Link to Opinion. A mortgagee initiated a foreclosure action against borrowers based upon…
11th Cir. Holds CAFA’s ‘Local Controversy’ Exception Does Not Preclude Federal-Question Jurisdiction
11th Cir. Holds CAFA’s ‘Local Controversy’ Exception Does Not Preclude Federal-Question Jurisdiction
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the federal Class Action Fairness Act’s (CAFA) local-controversy provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4), does not preclude a federal trial court from exercising federal-question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the federal trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the matter to state court following the defendants’ removal. A copy of the opinion in Blevins v. Aksut is available at: Link to Opinion. The litigation involved a defendant doctor’s alleged performance of unnecessary heart procedures on the plaintiffs. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant doctor would…
In a data breach putative class action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the trial court had not conducted the required “rigorous analysis” of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)’s class certification prerequisites when certifying the settlement class or when evaluating arguments raised by class objectors. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit also reversed the trial court’s ruling on the amount of the appeal bond, holding that an appellate bond should not include costs associated with delays in administering a class action settlement while the matter was on appeal. A copy of the opinion in Jim…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a group of plaintiffs plausibly alleged claims for violations of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act by asserting that a mortgage lender refused to consider their Section 8 income in assessing their creditworthiness as mortgage applicants, and that they received mortgage loans on less favorable terms and in lesser amounts than they would have had their Section 8 income been considered. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit held that the ECOA does not encompass mortgage purchasers and investors who do not participate in the extension of mortgage loans, even when…
In a case involving allegations that a bank employer violated state and federal laws by not allowing an employee to work remotely from home when she became pregnant, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently vacated in part the trial court’s judgment adopting the jury’s verdict in the bank’s favor and the trial court’s disqualification order in the bank’s favor, and dismissed the appeal in part as to the employee’s claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), remanding for further proceedings. A copy of the opinion in Sheng v. M&TBank Corporation is available at:…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016), a consumer alleged a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing to pursue a Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim for alleged nonconsensual text messages. In so ruling, the Court held that a consumer may revoke his or her consent, but must clearly express that he or she does not want to receive the messages or calls. The Court concluded that, in this case, the consumer gave prior express consent to receive the…
In an appeal involving the settlement of four separate class actions under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by electing to use the “percentage-of-the-benefit” method to calculate class counsel’s fee award, as opposed to the “lodestar” method. The Eighth Circuit also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the respective class counsel to distribute the award amongst themselves without judicial oversight or approval. A copy of the opinion in Lindsey Thut v. Life Time…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s approval of a proposed class settlement in an action arising from a mortgage loan servicer’s practice of automatically ordering and charging for drive-by property inspections on delinquent borrowers, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. In so ruling, the Court also affirmed the trial court’s denial of a borrower’s motion to join a trespass claim to the putative class action. A copy of the opinion in Kenneth Njema v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is available at: Link to Opinion. In 2008, four borrowers…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that although a consumer’s suit against a cable service provider for failing to destroy his personal information was a substantive violation of the federal Cable Communications Policy Act, it failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that “escrow funds, insurance proceeds, or miscellaneous proceeds” are protected by the anti-modification provisions for Chapter 13 bankruptcies as “incidental property” under the definition of “debtor’s principal residence” in the federal Bankruptcy Code. A copy of the opinion in In re Birmingham is available at: Link to Opinion. A debtor filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. One of the claims against the debtor was a mortgage loan secured by a deed of trust on the debtor’s primary residence. When the debtor filed his original Chapter 13 bankruptcy…