DS News

36 JUDGE RULES WITH HOMEOWNERS IN CREDIT SUISSE SUIT Banks are historically hard to sue, with laws generally siding with the financial institutions. However, Judge Robert Scola, Jr. sided with the homeowners, led by lead plaintiff Kimberly Barardi. e court's conclusion: Homeowners had been misled. e case, Barardi v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., case number 1:16-cv-23381, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, was filed in August of 2016. Barardi took out a loan with Credit Suisse in 2005 and defaulted in five years. Foreclosure proceedings began, according to Law360's reporting on the case. However, in 2015, Barardi attempted to handle the default and accompanying fees. Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS), a division of Credit Suisse, sent the woman a reinstatement letter that did not list all the monies owed. Barardi said she had the funds outlined in the SPS letter but did not pay because the amount in the letter was higher than what she really owed and that she did not understand the fees included. "e plaintiff 's allegations that she was deprived of the right to information is sufficient on its own to confer standing under the FDCPA," Law360 reported Judge Scola as saying. e bank sought dismissal, alleging the class had not provided a thorough case the bank had failed to properly disclose debts and fees. In Barardi's case, the judge declared the homeowner's case solid with all the necessary information, and Credit Suisse had indeed violated the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCPA), misleading homeowners over fees for reinstating mortgages. Scola, Law360 reported, said the homeowners had "specifically claimed that SPS included hidden and illegitimate fees," this being blatantly against the FDCPA. e homeowners are represented by Jack Dennis Card, Jr. and Darren R. Newhart of Consumer Law Organization PA, James L. Kauffman of Bailey & Glasser LLP, and Court E. Keeley of Jacobs Keeley PLLC. SPS is represented by Keith Levenberg of Goodwin Proctor LLP as well as Jonathan R. Rosenn and Jan T. Williams of Lapin & Leichtling LLP. DOJ REQUESTS ARGUMENT TIME IN CFPB CASE e U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed an unopposed motion with the D.C. Circuit Court requesting 10 minutes of argument time during the oral argument in the rehearing en banc in the PHH Corporation case against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). e argument is to be held on May 24. e D.C. Circuit Court allows for 30 minutes per side for oral argument. In its request for argument time, the DOJ stated that because "our position in this case does not fully align with either party," it is requesting that "instead of sharing time with either party, we receive a total of 10 minutes for the United States." e motion states, "We respectfully request leave to present oral argument in support of the position taken by the United States. e United States has a unique interest in the resolution of the question presented, which centers on the validity of a statutory limitation on the president's authority." e DOJ previously filed an amicus brief in support of PHH Corporation, declaring the CFPB unconstitutional. e 33-page brief from the DOJ focuses largely on President Trump's power to replace the CFPB director. Justice Department lawyers have argued that the current structure of the CFPB is problematic, as it allows the presidency to remove the director only for negligence or malfeasance. e brief states that, instead, the president can remove the director at will. "Limitations on the president's authority to remove a single agency head are a recent development to which the executive branch has consistently objected," the Justice Department's previous brief said. "Under the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, the general rule is that the president must have authority to remove executive branch agency heads at will." e DOJ's position is that the CFPB is unconstitutional but calls for restructuring. PHH, however, has called for the complete dismantling of the CFPB.

• Cover