On January 21st, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, on the question of whether disparate impact claims for discrimination are recognized under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The third time may be the charm as the Supreme Court has twice dismissed recent cases on this question prior to oral argument due to settlements. Continue reading this entry
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a significant Medicaid-preemption case from the Ninth Circuit, Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Armstrong. In that case, Medicaid-participating health care facilities in Idaho sued the state’s Department of Health and Welfare officials for failure to properly reimburse the providers for their costs under the Medicaid Act. The providers argue that Idaho’s low reimbursement rates violated Section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act, which requires states to reimburse providers at the rates that are “consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30(A). Continue reading this entry
Every week, courts around the United States issue decisions addressing aspects of civil UDAAP claims.
In an effort to illuminate the UDAAP standards, below is a sampling of some of this week’s UDAAP decisions on the meaning of unfair, deceptive, and abusive.
- A mortgage lender was entitled to judgment in its favor on borrowers’ claims that it engaged in deceptive practices in violation of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The borrowers’ allegations that the lender failed to disclose deferred interest and negative amortization of their adjustable rate mortgage loan failed given provisions in the loan documents disclosing the potential for such charges. Tennier v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Continue reading this entry
Until today, courts were split over what steps borrowers must take to rescind a home loan. Some courts had ruled that a borrower simply had to send a rescission notice to his creditor within three years after taking out a loan. Others said the notice alone does not suffice; a lawsuit must be filed within three years after the transaction is consummated to obtain a judicial determination of the notice’s effect. This morning, in a unanimous decision, the country’s highest court held that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) only requires borrowers to send a notice of rescission within three years to cancel a transaction. Continue reading this entry
On Monday, January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the preemption case, Oneok v. Learjet. In reliance on state law private action remedies, Learjet sued Oneok over market manipulation in natural gas prices to large volume purchasers. 21 bipartisan state Attorneys General filed an amicus brief defending their state regulatory authority on the natural gas industry while several national energy associations filed a brief promoting federal jurisdiction in the case. Continue reading this entry