The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is not a direct endorsement lender's “client” because HUD did not pay the lender for its services, and therefore HUD was not covered by the direct endorsement lender's professional liability insurance.
Posts published by “Ryan Grotz”
Ryan Grotz practices in Maurice Wutscher's Commercial Litigation, Consumer Credit Litigation, and Appellate groups. He has substantial experience in all phases of commercial litigation, including motion practice, written discovery, depositions, mediations, and bench and jury trials. Ryan received his Juris Doctor from the Chicago-Kent College of Law, where he was an associate editor on the Access to Justice Student Editorial Board. He was awarded his Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the University of Iowa. Ryan is licensed to practice law in Illinois and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/ryan-grotz/
The Indiana Supreme Court recently held that there are important legal differences between closed-end installment contracts (such as ordinary mortgage loans) and open-end accounts (such as HELOCs) when considering statute of limitations, and there is no need to impose a rule of reasonableness when a lender sues for payment on a closed-end installment contract.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the trial court had Article III jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in approving a settlement between a social media company and a nationwide class of its users who alleged that the social media company routinely scanned and collected their private information without their consent.
The Maryland Court of Appeals recently held that victims on whose behalf money is collected or property is recovered by the Maryland Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General's Office (CPD) or federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have no authority, through a private settlement, whether or not approved by a court, to preclude the CPD or CFPB from pursuing their own remedies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the restrictions on the president's removal authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, allowing for the removal of the CFPB's director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” are valid and constitutional.
The Supreme Court of Illinois recently held that an effective tender made prior to a class certification motion, which satisfies the named plaintiff’s individual claim, moots her interest in the litigation and ends the matter.