Advanced Pleadings Search

This session will discuss legal claims and strategies for dealing with long-dormant second mortgages that are suddenly back from the dead. We will discuss bringing claims in bankruptcy court and focus on FDCPA and UDAAP claims both in and out of bankruptcy court.

This Wisconsin small claims court complaint brought by a consumer against a party to a rent-a-bank scheme demonstrates another approach to challenge rent-a-bank schemes, even where the bank is considered the true lender.  The consumer can assert non-usury claims against the bank's partners.  The company "renting" the bank may be liable as someone who arranges or brokers the loan.  In Wisconsin the company may have to be licensed and comply with the requirements of the state credit services organization act.

Subpoena for records from DocuSign regarding an electronically executed contract for solar panels.

Complaint alleging that an algorithm-based tenant screening system had a disparate impact in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, and Massachusetts General Laws

Statement of Interest of the United States in matter alleging that an algorithm-based tenant screening system had a disparate impact in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, and Massachusetts General Laws.

This is a sample of a letter typically sent at the beginning of litigation, or pre-litigation, advising the Defendant to preserve all relevant documents and electronic records. This ESI preservation letter is related to Notices of Error sent to the servicer. Letter drafted by Thomas Cox. 

Sample discovery requests in a case involving failure to respond to a QWR asking for the identity of the loan holder. Case litigated by Sarah Mancini, Atlanta Legal Aid.

Sample discovery requests in a case involving failure to respond to a QWR asking for the identity of the loan holder. Case litigated by Sarah Mancini, Atlanta Legal Aid. 
 

Sample discovery requests in a case involving failure to respond to a QWR asking for the identity of the loan holder. Case litigated by Sarah Mancini, Atlanta Legal Aid. 
 

Sample discovery requests from a case involving failure to properly apply payments and failure to provide a timely and accurate payoff quote. Case litigated by Rachel Scott, Atlanta Legal Aid. 
 

Sample discovery requests from a case involving failure to properly apply payments and failure to provide a timely and accurate payoff quote. Case litigated by Rachel Scott, Atlanta Legal Aid. 

Sample discovery requests from a case involving failure to properly apply payments and failure to provide a timely and accurate payoff quote. Case litigated by Rachel Scott, Atlanta Legal Aid. 
 

This document contains sections of legal argument for a brief in response to Motion to Dismiss on damages issues including statutory damages, pattern and practice, actual damages, causation. Such issues commonly are raised by defendants in mortgage servicing cases. Additional case citations and explanation on these issues are contained in NCLC's Mortgage Servicing and Loan Modifications.

Brief Regarding Statutory Authority for RESPA loss mitigation rules. Brief explains the statutory authority for the RESPA Regulation X loss mitigation and QWR rules and explains that certain case law predating the CFPB’s 2014 rule is now outdated. Case litigated by Phillip Robinson, Consumer Law Center LLC.

Complaint involving RESPA claims for failure to correct a servicing error related to payment application issues. The case was litigated by Phillip Robinson, Consumer Law Center LLC. 

Complaint regarding loss mitigation rule violations; failure to get to a complete application, failure to timely evaluate a complete application. Sample based on a complaint crafted by Legal Services of South Central Michigan.

This is a 2023 class complaint filed in the Western District of Washington that the mobile phone carrier failed to protect customers personal and financial information and that this resulted in a SIM card swapping scam, so that the scammer gained control of the customers’ phone number and phone account without gaining possession of the customer’s phone.  Claims against T-Mobile included negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, UDAP, violations of the Federal Communications Act, and other federal claims.

This is a 2020 individual complaint filed in the Central District of California that the mobile phone carrier failed to protect customers personal and financial information and that this resulted in a SIM card swapping scam, so that the scammer gained control of the customers’ phone number and phone account without gaining possession of the customer’s phone.  Claims against ATT included that the agreement and disclaimers were unconscionable and against public policy, deceit by concealment, misrepresentation, negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, breach of contract, and vi

This is a 2019 individual complaint filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina that the mobile phone carrier failed to protect customers personal and financial information and that this resulted in a SIM card swapping scam, so that the scammer gained control of the customers’ phone number and phone account without gaining possession of the customer’s phone.  Claims against ATT included negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, the North Carolina Anti-Hacking statute, UDAP, and violations of the Federal Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

This 2024 federal court brief filed in the Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of a class of consumers successfully argued that clicking a website to set up a free Experian account is not sufficient to bind the consumers to an arbitration clause found in the terms of use. See Cox v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., 2024 WL 3625859 (S.D. W. Va. Aug.

This is a jury instruction in a federal case in the Northern District of California concerning a homeowner's challenge to foreclosure practices, including violations of TILA, RESPA, FDCPA, the California debt collection statute, and breach of fiduciary duty.  The instructions include a number of general items of relevance to most consumer litigation and then instructions related to the homeowner's specific legal claims.  These instructions are mentioned in a decision favoring the homeowner in Drakeford v. Cap. Benefit, Inc., 2022 WL 2643984 (N.D. Cal.