This is a 2023 FDCPA complaint that takes care to plead facts to support constitutional Article III standing in federal court. The complaint specifies the plaintiff's concrete injury from an invasion of her privacy, seclusion, and the right to counsel; from her emotional distress; and from the cost to her of additional time, money, and effort to assert her rights. The complaint was drafted by the Illinois firm of Philipps & Philipps.
This is a 2023 FDCPA complaint that pleads facts to support constitutional Article III standing in federal court. The complaint specifies concrete injury from an invasion of privacy and the time and expense of having his attorney send defendants a letter. The complaint was drafted by the Illinois firm of Philipps & Philipps and the Missouri firm of the Callahan Law Firm.
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.
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.
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.
Consumer liability for unauthorized transfers under Virginia UCC Article 4A. Consumer alleges that it did not agree to any security procedure sufficient to shift liability to consumer.
Consumer liability for unauthorized transfers under California UCC Article 4A. Consumer alleges that bank failed to establish and/or follow a commercially reasonable security procedure.
This is a 2021 state court complaint alleging that, in a rent-a-bank situation, the credit agreements with an out-of-state bank did not comply with Wisconsin's non-interest rate regulation of consumer credit. Although not stated in the complaint, the bank could not rely on Riegle-Neal preemption as to Wisconsin non-interest rate regulation because TAB Bank had no branches in Wisconsin. As a result, it had to comply with Wisconsin non-interest rate regulation and not that of its home state regulation. The case was removed to federal court and the federal case resulted
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.