Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Ninth Circuit”

9th Cir. Holds Loan Secured by Property Held in Trust for Family Member Can Be ‘Consumer’ Loan

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a trustee borrower’s claims under the federal Truth-In-Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act seeking rescission of a loan obtained to effectuate repairs upon a property inhabited by the trust’s beneficiary.

9th Cir. Rules Letter’s ‘Benefits’ of Paying Time-Barred Debt Not Misleading Under FDCPA, CFPB to Address SOL Disclosures

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a collection letter offering payment options on a time-barred debt and listing “benefits” of paying the debt was not deceptive or misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Meanwhile, the CFPB is expected to take up the issue of time-barred debt disclosures early next year.

9th Cir. Holds FCRA ‘Permissible Purpose’ Plaintiff Had Standing, Establishes Elements for Such Claims

In a case of first impression in that circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a consumer’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, holding that the plaintiff had Article III standing. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the consumer suffered a concrete injury in fact when a bank obtained her credit report for a purpose not authorized by the statute, and it was irrelevant whether the report was published or used by the party requesting it. The Court…

9th Cir. Holds Attorneys’ Fees May Be Included in CAFA ‘Amount in Controversy’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently vacated an order sua sponte remanding to state court a putative class action removed under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held: When a notice of removal plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, a federal trial court may not remand the case back to state court without giving the defendants an opportunity to demonstrate that the jurisdictional requirements were satisfied; The amount in controversy may be based on reasonable assumptions tied to the allegations in the complaint; When a statute or contract…

9th Cir. Holds Ex-Husband Had No Right to Cancel Under TILA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the financial services defendants in an action to rescind the mortgage under the federal Truth in Lending Act. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff consumer did not have a right of rescission under TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., because he previously quitclaimed his interest in the property to his ex-wife, and his new loan to acquire the property from his ex-wife was a “residential mortgage transaction.” A copy of the opinion in Barnes v.…

9th Cir. Holds Violation of Facial Recognition Law Sufficient for Standing, Upholds Class Cert.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that class plaintiffs alleged a concrete and particularized harm sufficient to confer Article III standing where the defendant company’s alleged collection, use, and storage of the plaintiffs’ biometric information was the substantive harm targeted by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which statute protects the plaintiffs’ concrete privacy interests. The Ninth Circuit further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court orders certifying the class, and denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. A copy…

9th Cir. Holds No FCRA Violation by CRA When Dispute Did Not Come ‘Directly’ From Consumer

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that where a company sent dispute letters to a credit reporting agency on behalf of a consumer, but the consumer did not identify the items to be disputed, review the letters, or otherwise play any role in preparing the letters, the letters did not come “directly” from the consumer, and the CRA was not required to conduct a reinvestigation under section 1681i of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As a result, the Ninth Circuit held that the CRA did not violate section 1681i, and also did not act…