Advanced Pleadings Search

This is an action under the Administrative Procedure Act for declaratory relief from Gainful Employment (“GE”) regulations of the U.S. Department of Education, 34 C.F.R. Part 668 Subpart Q, as applied to member schools of the American Association of Cosmetology Schools. The GE regulation assesses the outcomes of educational programs based on the ratio of graduates’ educational debt to earnings. Although the Department acknowledges that some graduates of cosmetology programs underreport their incomes, the Department has made no provision for such underreporting in its regulations.

Does the preemption of state usury laws enjoyed by national banks under the National Bank Act extend to non-bank debt buyers where, as here, the national bank retains no interest in or control over the subject accounts, and the national bank and the debt buyer are operationally and legally unrelated entities?

As demonstrated in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and the Administrative Record (“AR”), the FDIC’s rule on the Federal Interest Rate Authority, 85 Fed. Reg. 44,146 (July 22, 2020) (“Final Rule”) represents a reasonable interpretation of 12 U.S.C. § 1831d, and should be upheld under Chevron’s familiar two-step framework. The Final Rule is neither arbitrary or capricious, nor contrary to law, is consistent with the FDIC’s authority, and in compliance with applicable procedural requirements.

States have long used interest-rate caps to prevent predatory lending. In light of the comprehensive federal regulatory regime to which national banks are subject, Congress exempted them from compliance with state rate caps in the National Bank Act (“NBA”). 12 U.S.C. § 85 (allowing national banks to “take, receive, reserve, and charge” interest in excess of state law); see also 12 U.S.C. § 1463(g)(1) (same for federal savings associations).

This is a case about federal overreach. States have long used interest-rate caps to protect consumers, business owners, and scrupulous creditors from the harms of predatory lending. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) exempts federally insured, state-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (“FDIC Banks”) from these caps.

1. Elevate is on online lender that operates through several websites, including www.risecredit.com, www.elastic.com, and www.elevate.com, to provide predatory, high-interest, short-term loans to consumers that it describes as individuals “with little to no savings, urgent credit needs and limited options.”

This is a class action complaint against a debt settlement organization that used the attorney model. It alleges common law fraud, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (for attorneys), and the Illinois Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the complaint provide an extensive description of how debt settlement operators attempt to evade laws regulating debt relief services by attempting to use attorneys as a front for their operations.

Defendants’ Consolidated Opposition to Motions for Intervention

This class action lawsuit presents a dispute between student loan borrowers and the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) regarding the Department’s process for reviewing and adjudicating borrowers’ applications for the Department to relieve them of their loan repayment obligations based on the alleged misconduct of the schools they attended.

This is a class action against the City of Cleveland for various discriminatory and abusive practices concerning water pricing, termination of service, and turning water delinquencies into tax liens and tax takings, including claims under the FHA, due process, and state law.

This is an answer and affirmative defenses in an foreclosure on a reverse mortgage after the death of one spouse, where the remaining spouse demands proof that the plaintiff is the holder of the reverse mortgage, and alleging that the HECM mortgage was consummated without the required HECM counseling, that the foreclosure was initiated with improper loss mitigation or servicing, and that the plaintiff had unclean hands and initiated foreclosure without complying with a condition precedent.

This is a proposed order of dismissal of a lender foreclosure action on a HECM reverse mortgage relating to non-payment of property charges, where the applied for, and was granted, an “AT RISK” extension of the foreclosure deadlines.  The order sets out that the effect of the AT RISK extension is that the lender will not proceed on the foreclosure for one year and the extension continues thereafter so long as, prior to the expiration of the one-year extension, the homeowner certifies that she continues to meet the criteria for the extension.

This is an action in Pennsylvania state court seeking the court clerk to put a residential foreclosure case into deferred status due to the homeowner’s status as an “At Risk” mortgagor under HECM regulations.

This is a 2018 New Jersey state court summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss a judicial foreclosure action concerning a reverse mortgage because HUD had granted an at risk foreclosure extension.  The motion was filed by Legal Services of New Jersey.

This is motion to set aside a default judgment on a Florida foreclosure action and sale concerning unpaid property taxes and insurance on a reverse mortgage. The excusable neglect is based on the homeowner’s age and cognitive difficulties. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is a brief in opposition to a lender’s attempt to strike the homeowner’s defenses and dismiss the homeowner’s UDAP and ECOA counterclaims in a Florida action involving the foreclosure of a reverse mortgage for alleged failure to pay property taxes or insurance. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is an answer and defenses to a Connecticut action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage for failure to pay property taxes and insurance where the lender breached the payment plan that had been agreed upon.  The Connecticut Fair Housing Center drafted the pleadings.

This is a homeowner’s first request for documents from a reverse mortgage lender in a Florida action to foreclose on the home for non-payment of taxes or insurance. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is a Florida homeowner’s first request for documents from a reverse mortgage lender in a Florida action to foreclose on the home for non-payment of taxes or insurance. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is an answer and defenses to a Florida action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage for failure to pay property taxes and insurance where the defenses are based on the lender’s failure to comply with servicing requirements and failure to show it has standing to foreclose. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is an answer and defenses to a Florida action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage for failure to pay property taxes and insurance where the defenses are based on the lender’s failure to comply with servicing requirements and failure to show it has standing to foreclose. Counterclaims include UDAP and ECOA age discrimination and adverse action notice violations. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is an amended answer, defenses and counterclaims to a Florida action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage where there was confusion as to the amount owed on a separate line of credit that was used to pay insurance.  The defenses are based on estoppel, the lender’s failure to comply with HECM servicing requirements, substantial performance, and unclean hands. Counterclaims include violation the state debt collection, ECOA violations for age discrimination and failure to properly send adverse action notices, malicious prosecution, and slander of title.

This is an amended counterclaims to a Florida action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage for failure to pay property taxes and insurance.  Counterclaims include UDAP and FDCPA claims against the servicer.  Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

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.

This is one of three complaints illustrating the use of photographs and images inserted directly into a complaint to visually emphasize facts in a used car case.  The complaints were submitted by Matthew Osborne, a consumer attorney in Northglenn, Colorado.  This complaint is before an arbitrator in an action administered by the American Arbitration Association and involves breach of warranty, undisclosed defects, and misrepresentations concerning repairs performed, and replacement parts inserted into, a used car prior to its sale.

This is one of three complaints illustrating the use of photographs and images inserted directly into a complaint to visually emphasize facts in a used car case.  The complaints were submitted by Matthew Osborne, a consumer attorney in Northglenn, Colorado.  This complaint involves undisclosed wreck damage, failure to properly brand the title, and odometer tampering.

This is one of three complaints illustrating the use of photographs and images inserted directly into a complaint to visually emphasize facts in a used car case.  The complaints were submitted by Matthew Osborne, a consumer attorney in Northglenn, Colorado.  This complaint involves undisclosed wreck damage and undisclosed major vehicle repair problems. 

This is the consumers' reply to the defendant's objection to the consumers' request for attorney fees.  The settled case involved a law firm's use of allegedly unfair debt collection practices when it sought to recover its appointed counsel fees from the indigent defendants it was representing in criminal cases.  Among other reasons why the consumers argued for the court to award them significant attorney fees was the novelty of the case.  The consumers raised claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and civil rights statutes, and the reply goes i

This is a 2021 first amended complaint in a class action involving land contracts, filed against Vision Property Management in federal court in Michigan. This action arises out of Vision’s discriminatory targeting of Black homebuyers for abusive credit terms in home purchase transactions. Promising these prospective home buyers the American dream of homeownership, Vision ensnared residents in predominantly Black Detroit-area communities in predatory and discriminatory contracts that were structured to fail.

This is a 2017 second amended complaint against Harbour Portfolio in an action involving land contracts, filed on behalf of a number of African-Americans in federal court in Georgia. The action arises out of Harbour Portfolio’s discriminatory targeting of African-American consumers for abusive credit terms in home purchase “contract for deed” transactions, both by intentional targeting and by utilizing practices that have a foreseeable disparate impact on African-American consumers.

This is a 2019 first amended complaint in a class action involving land contracts, filed against Vision Property Management in New Jersey state court. It argues that the contract is an illegal combination of a lease and a rent-to-own sale of real estate, in which the lease is illegal and the rent-to-own transaction is illegal, deceptive, fraudulent, predatory, and unconscionable. The single document into which they are combined is confusing and internally inconsistent.

This is the first amended complaint in a federal action in Michigan alleging misrepresentation of the terms of residential home sales and financing agreements, failure to disclose hidden credit charges, and conducting business in an unfair and deceptive manner. The complaint alleges deceptive promises of homeownership that lured unsuspecting home buyers into predatory and abusive loans that were designed to fail.

This is a consumer’s motion directed to a mortgage servicer asking the court to deem the consumer’s requests for admission admitted. A separate Pleading and Discovery file is a reply to the servicer’s objection, and a proposed order. These documents address frivolous objections commonly raised by corporate defendants including: the document speaks for itself, the facts are public record and may be easily verified by the requestor, and the request seeks admission of a legal theory rather than a fact. Although filed in state court (Maine) it applies the Fed. R. Civ. P.

This is a reply to the servicer’s objection to the consumer’s request to deem the consumer’s admission requests admitted, and also a proposed order. Another Pleading and Discovery file is the consumer’s motion directed to a mortgage servicer asking the court to deem the consumer’s requests for admission admitted.

The complaint asserts causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code §1782 et seq.; the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welf. & Inst. Code §15600, et seq.; the Home Solicitation Sales Act, Civ. Code §1689.5 et seq.; Bus. & Prof. Code §7150 et seq.; and the Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq. against both Appellants and a cause of action for violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civ. Code §1788 et seq.

This is an answer and counterclaim by a manufactured home purchaser against a manufactured home dealer and employee, which had brought an action against the purchaser to repossess the home and for the balance of the price.  The pleading alleges that the set-up for the manufactured home, a double-wide, was not completed and that the home was uninhabitable. It alleges counterclaims for breach of contract, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud in the inducement, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.

This request for production of documents on behalf of the purchaser of a manufactured home focuses on defects in the home.  It asks the manufacturer to produce the basic contract documents and warranties, reports regarding the inspection of the home and inspections of the manufacturer’s factory, repair records, and various other documents.   It was prepared and filed for use in an arbitration proceeding but could be adapted for use in court.

This is a sample request for production of documents to a manufactured home manufacturer, focusing on defects in the home.

This is a sample complaint against a dealer and a manufacturer of a defective manufactured home.  It also alleges that the home was represented as new even though it had been previously sold.  It alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of an express warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and the state UDAP statute. 

This is a sample complaint regarding defects in a manufactured home.

In its March 2022 updates to a staff manual for its examiners, the CFPB noted that discrimination can satisfy the statutory requirements for unfairness under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The Bureau did not determine that any particular discriminatory practice was unfair. 

DentalPlans made many thousands of telemarketing robocalls to the cell phones of Plaintiff and tens of thousands of other similarly situated Americans. On June 6, 2024, this Court denied defendant DentalPlans’ summary judgment motion on the issue of whether it had consent to make the calls, and granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

The summary judgment ruling was based upon the Court’s finding that DentalPlans was required to have obtained “prior express written consent” for its robocalls, because that is the standard the FCC set for telemarketing robocalls.

This brief addresses the applicability of section 227(c)(5) to text messages. 

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits sending text messages to phone numbers on the national Do Not Call List, just as it prohibits traditional voice calls. As both the FCC and courts have long recognized, the plain meaning of the word “call” in the TCPA
encompasses any attempt to communicate by phone, “regardless of whether that call is communicated by voice or text.”