Complaint

This is a March 2025 amended complaint filed in the New Jersey federal court against a home equity “investment” lender bringing counts under the Truth in Lending Act, the New Jersey Home Ownership Security Act, the New Jersey UDAP statute, the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act, and a related party for aiding and abetting, seeking equitable relief, damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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

Tremalgio v. PHH Corp., D. Conn. April 2023.  Complaint.  Loss mitigation-related UDAP, RESPA, harm related to implementation of loan modification  Jeff Gentes

Breen v. Midfirst Bank, D. Conn., Complaint May 2024  application of payments, escrow, UDAP, related Reg. X, and breach of contract. Lorraine Martinez Conn. Fair Housing