The federal government shutdown continues and, in the wake of the President Donald Trump’s Oval Office address in support of the border wall, it appears that it could continue for some time. Press reports say approximately 800,000 federal workers are furloughed or working without pay. Consumer-facing companies are asking: What is the impact of the
In American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc. et al., the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the Eastern District of Missouri’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of American Family, finding that the insurer did not have to defend and indemnify its client Vein Centers,
Who should decide the “gateway” issue of arbitrability? That is, should a court or an arbitrator decide whether a particular issue is subject to arbitration? According to the Fourth Circuit, it depends on the agreement to arbitrate.
On January 4, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Novic v. Credit One, No. 17-2168,
Earlier this month, the apparent next chair of the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, along with almost two dozen other Democrats, urged the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new director to proactively supervise firms for compliance with servicemember lending rules.
In a letter to CPFB Director Kathleen Kraninger, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
It is commonplace today for businesses to include binding arbitration provisions in customer agreements. It is also common for these arbitration agreements to have a “delegation provision,” where the parties agree to delegate to the arbitrator – not the court – questions of whether the arbitration agreement applies to a dispute. But even when the
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan cannot modify the rights of a secured creditor whose claim is only secured by an “interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence.” On December 6, the Eleventh Circuit held that this provision prevents the discharge of a mortgage in a Chapter
On Oct. 4, 2018, in Smith v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company,[1] the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled the plaintiff could not advance his putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act if he qualified as an independent contractor rather than an employee. The decision presents another helpful
The Northern District of California recently held that medical records are not discoverable in Fair Credit Reporting Act cases when a plaintiff only generally alleges that he or she suffered emotional harm. In Prado v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, the plaintiff claimed Equifax mixed up her credit report with that of her sister,
On January 3, 49 state attorneys general announced a settlement with Career Education Corporation (“CEC”), a for-profit education company, to resolve claims that CEC engaged in unfair and deceptive practices. The settlement requires CEC to forgo any collection efforts against $493.7 million in outstanding loan debt held by nearly 180,000 former students. It also imposes
A Fair Credit Reporting Act claim by any other name is still an FCRA claim. That’s the recent holding by the Northern District of New York in Arnold v. Navient Sols., LLC. Plaintiffs cannot avoid federal court jurisdiction through “artful pleading” when they assert claims relating to the responsibilities of information furnishers.
Factual Background