This is a December 2024 opposition to the home equity investment lender’s motion to dismiss the debtor in bankruptcy’s adversary proceeding complaint and objection to a proof of claim filed in the bankruptcy court for the District of Colorado.
This is an August 2024 adversary proceeding complaint and objection to a proof of claim brought by the debtor in bankruptcy against a home equity “investment” lender, filed in the bankruptcy court for the District of Colorado.
This is a July 2024 reply brief before the Ninth Circuit where a homeowner is appealing a federal district court decision concerning the homeowner’s legal claims against a home equity “investment” lender, and whether the transaction is a reverse mortgage loan under Washington law covered by statutes applicable to reverse mortgage loans. The brief focuses on the lender’s evasion of Washington law and the lender’s deceptive practices.
This is a June 2025 memorandum filed in the New Jersey federal court in opposition to a motion to compel arbitration arguing that the claims against a home equity “investment” lender are not subject to an arbitration requirement. The Truth in Lending Act prohibits mandatory arbitration for mortgage loans and the memorandum argues the transaction is a mortgage loan covered by the prohibition on mandatory arbitration. The memorandum also argues that the arbitration provision is unconscionable and does not apply to the claims in the case.
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 is a February 2024 brief before the Ninth Circuit where a homeowner is appealing a federal district court decision concerning the homeowner’s legal claims against a home equity “investment” lender, and whether the transaction is a reverse mortgage loan under Washington law covered by statutes applicable to reverse mortgage loans. The brief was submitted by Beth Terrell, Blythe Chandler, and Elizabeth Adams of the Seattle firm of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and by Matthew Wessler and Thomas Scott-Railton of the Washington DC firm of Gupta Wessler LLP, and Josep
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 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.