CFSL Bulletin The latest Consumer Financial Services Litigation news, developments, and legal thinking

Tag Archives: Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Claims Under the CCRAA

Posted by Jennifer M. Toussaint on Posted in Fair Credit Reporting Act; Preemption

In Carvalho v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, No. 09-15030, 2010 W.L. 3239477 (9th Cir., Aug. 18, 2010), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”).

The Plaintiff alleged that three credit reporting agencies, Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”), Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) and Transunion LLC (“Transunion”), erroneously reported a debt on her credit report despite her requests for reinvestigation and correction of outstanding debt information provided to the agencies by Credit Consulting Services (“CCS”), a collection agency. CCS successfully filed a general demurrer alleging that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) preempted the Plaintiff’s claims against it under the CCRAA. Defendant Equifax successfully removed the case to the District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming that the case met the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”).

Continue reading this entry

Ninth Circuit Creates Split About the Meaning of the Word “Sue” as Used in the CROA

Posted by Sonia Salinas on Posted in Credit CARD Act

The Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), found at 15 U.S.C. § 1679, was enacted to ensure consumers of services of credit repair organizations are provided with the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding the purchase of such services; and to protect the public from unfair or deceptive advertising and business practices by credit repair organizations. Section 1679c of the

CROA requires that credit repair organizations make certain written disclosures to consumers including that consumers have “a right to sue a credit repair organization that violates” the CROA. The CROA also contains a provision that voids any waiver by consumers of rights provided in the CROA. In a recent decision, Greenwood, et al. v. CompuCredit Corp., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3222415 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010)(Thomas, J.), the Ninth Circuit disagreed with decisions from other circuits about whether arbitration agreements between credit repair organizations and consumers are enforceable when a consumer sues for violations of the CROA. Specifically, there is now a dispute among the circuits about what the word “sue” means as used in the CROA. Does the word “sue” as used in Section 1679c create a right for consumers to sue in court; or does the word “sue” encompass dispute resolution through arbitration?

Continue reading this entry

Ninth Circuit Making Retroactive Application of TILA Regulations?

Posted by Samantha Powers on Posted in Truth in Lending Act

Pursuant to revisions to Regulation Z, effective July 1, 2010, a creditor cannot use the term “fixed” to describe an annual percentage rate (APR) “unless the creditor also specifies a time period that the rate will be fixed and the rate will not increase during that period, or if no such time period is provided, the rate will not increase while the plan is open.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.5(a)(2)(iii). While this new regulation cannot be applied retroactively in form, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently issued a decision (Rubio v. Capital One Bank) that constitutes a retroactive application in effect, despite the court’s express denial of doing same.

Continue reading this entry

Ninth Circuit Interprets the FDCPA

Posted by Rebecca Hanson on Posted in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

In Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., Case No. 09-35183 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2010), the Ninth Circuit interpreted two sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and held that a collections agency did not violate the FDCPA because the original payment terms between the appellant and her dental practice did not constitute a forbearance agreement under Washington State law. Additionally, the court held that the collections agency did not violate the FDCPA when it mislabeled the interest owed on the debt. The court found that the overall amount owed by the appellant was correct and, therefore, the mislabeled interest was not “materially false.”

Continue reading this entry