Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against MBCC, alleging claims arising from MBCC's failure to timely release a lien placed on her residence after she satisfied her underlying debt obligation. The district court granted summary judgment to MBCC and plaintiff appealed. The court rejected plaintiff's claims for breach of contract; slander of title; violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), Va. Code 59.1-200; violation of Virginia Code 55-66.3; and declaratory judgment. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. The court noted the substandard nature of MBCC’s conduct in releasing the lien on plaintiff’s home. While the various statutory barriers cited negate plaintiff’s claims, had she acted diligently she may have had viable claims at least as to breach of contract and Va. Code 55-66.3(B). Finally, the court stated that MBCC would be well served to review its business practices to forestall such claims in future cases. View "Poindexter v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp." on Justia Law

The parties’ dispute involved various “credit repair” services provided to plaintiff consumers, for which some of the disclosure requirements of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA, or the Act), 15 U.S.C. 1679 et seq., were not met. At issue was the district court's denial of a motion to vacate certain aspects of an arbitration award. The court held that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by determining that plaintiffs failed to prove actual damages under the Act; the court rejected plaintiffs’ various arguments regarding their request for additional attorneys’ fees and costs; and the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his contractually delegated authority under section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jones v. Dancel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, consumers who purchased joint health supplements produced and sold by GNC and Rite Aid, filed suit alleging that GNC and Rite Aid violated the consumer protection laws of various states by marketing these supplements as promoting joint health, even though many scientific studies have shown that the ingredients they contain, glucosamine and chondroitin, are no more effective than a placebo in treating the symptoms of osteoarthritis. The district court granted GNC and Rite Aid's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed, concluding that marketing statements, like the ones at issue here, that accurately describe the findings of duly qualified and reasonable scientific experts are not literally false. View "Brown v. GNC" on Justia Law

Oteria Moses borrowed $1,000 under a loan agreement that was illegal under North Carolina law. When Moses filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, CashCall, Inc., the loan servicer, filed a proof of claim. Moses subsequently filed an adversary proceeding against CashCall seeking a declaration that the loan was illegal and also seeking money damages for CashCall’s allegedly illegal debt collection activities. CashCall filed a motion to compel arbitration. The bankruptcy court denied CashCall’s motion to compel arbitration and retained jurisdiction over both Moses’ first claim for declaratory relief and second claim for damages. On appeal, the district court affirmed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court’s exercise of jurisdiction to retain in bankruptcy Moses’ first claim; but (2) erred in retaining in bankruptcy Moses’ claim for damages and denying CashCall’s motion to compel arbitration of that claim, as this claim was not constitutionally core. Remanded with instruction to grant CashCall’s motion to compel arbitration on Moses’ second claim for damages. View "Moses v. CashCall, Inc." on Justia Law

Despite having only a few hundred dollars in her checking account at SunTrust Bank, Appellant cut herself a check for nearly $10,000, resulting in a sizable overdraft. SunTrust hired a Maryland law firm, Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates (MR&A) to bring a debt collection suit. MR&A filed suit on SunTrust’s behalf in a general district court in Virginia. The general district court entered judgment in favor of MR&A. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint against SunTrust and MR&A (collectively, Appellees), alleging that Appellees violated Maryland consumer protection laws and that MR&A violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The federal district court dismissed Appellant’s suit for failure to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the counts alleged in Appellant’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief. View "Elyazidi v. SunTrust Bank" on Justia Law

Five individuals (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) each filed a petition for individual bankruptcy under Chapter 13 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. LVNV Funding, LLC and its affiliated companies (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a proof of unsecured claim based on defaulted debts it had acquired against each plaintiff. Each Chapter 13 plan was approved. Defendants’ claims were allowed, and they received payments from the Chapter 13 trustees on these claims. Plaintiffs subsequently filed this putative class action lawsuit in the District of Maryland alleging that Defendants violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and various Maryland laws by filing proofs of claim without a Maryland debt collection license. The district court dismissed the action, concluding (1) the state common law claims were barred by res judicata, and (2) the federal and state statutory claims failed to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit affirmed but on res judicata grounds, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ claims were based on the same cause of action as Defendants’ claims in the confirmed bankruptcy plans and were thus barred by res judicata; and (2) Plaintiffs’ statutory claims were subject to the normal principles of res judicata and were thus precluded by the confirmation of the Chapter 13 plans. View "Covert v. LVNV Funding, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Palisades, alleging violations of two provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f, and related statutes. Plaintiff, a credit card debtor, claimed that after Palisades purportedly purchased a judgment that had been entered against her in state court, it filed an Assignment of Judgment in the action that falsely represented its ownership of the judgment and misrepresented the amount she owed. The court concluded that the filing of an assignment of judgment in a debt collection act qualifies as debt collection activity that triggers the protections of the FDCPA; that the Assignment of Judgment that Palisades filed against plaintiff did not falsey claim Palisades' ownership of the judgment; and that the misrepresentations in the Assignment of Judgment as to the amount of the judgment and the amount of plaintiff's payments on the judgment were material. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment entered on plaintiff's FDCPA claim under section 1692e and remanded the claim. The court vacated the court's conditional ruling that the errors made in the Assignment of Judgment did not provide a basis for the "bona fide error defense" found in section 1692k(c). Finally, the court affirmed the judgment entered on plaintiff's section 1692f claim and her state-law claims. View "Powell v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC" on Justia Law

Company Doe filed suit to enjoin the Commission from publishing in its online, publicly accessible database a "report of harm" that attributed the death of an infant to a product manufactured and sold by Company Doe. Consumer Groups filed a post-judgment motion to intervene for the purpose of appealing the district court's sealing order as well as its decision to allow Company Doe to proceed under a pseudonym. The court held that Consumer Groups' notice of appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction to entertain Consumer Groups' motion to intervene, and, therefore, the court vacated the district court's order denying intervention; Consumer Groups were able to seek appellate review of the district court's orders because they met the requirements for nonparty appellate standing and have independent Article III standing to challenge the orders; and, on the merits, the district court's sealing order violated the public's right of access under the First Amendment and the district court abused its discretion in allowing Company Doe to litigate pseudonymously. Accordingly, the court vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.View "Company Doe v. Public Citizen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Absolute Collection, alleging that the collection agency's conduct violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p, and the North Carolina Collection Agency Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 58-70-1 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that Absolute Collection falsely reported the status of a 2008 debt to credit bureaus as "past due." The district court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to certain claims under the FDCPA and allowed the state claims to go to the jury, which found in favor of plaintiff. Absolute Collection appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Absolute Collection's motion for judgment as a matter of law and held that a debtor is not required to dispute his or her debt under section 1692g as a condition to filing suit under section 1692e. The court rejected Absolute Collection's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Russell v. Absolute Collection Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against defendants, alleging that they violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2607, by creating a joint venture (Prosperity) to skirt RESPA's prohibition on kickbacks while failing to disclose this business arrangement to its customers. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion denying plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs' failed to move for judgment as a matter of law before the jury reached its verdict and because of the highly deferential lenses through which the court must review the issues before it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law