9th Circuit Considers "Fixed" Rates under TILA
In Rubio v. Capital One Bank, the 9th Circuit considered what constitutes a "fixed" credit card interest rate under TILA. Plaintiff Rubio received a direct mail solicitation reflecting a "fixed" rate for balance transfers, listing three conditions under which the rate might change (late payment, exceeding credit limit, and returned payment), and stating the terms of the cardholder agreement were subject to change at any time. Rubio's rate increased though none of the three identified conditions had occurred.
Rubio sued for breach of contract, violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The district court dismissed all three causes of action on motions to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed.
Continue Reading...9th Circuit Affirms Preemption of CCRAA
In Carvalho v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claim under California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agency Act (CCRAA), Civil Code 1785.1 et seq., as preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681t(b)(1)(F).
In Carvalho, plaintiff incurred medical bills of $118. Plaintiff's carrier denied coverage for the bills, plaintiff failed to pay, and the provider sent the balance to a collection agency. After collection efforts, plaintiff refused to pay the invoice, and the collection agency reported the debt to the CRAs. Plaintiff disputed the debt with the CRAs in a series of letters. The CRAs reinvestigated various times and the furnisher verified the debt after each reinvestigation.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against the furnisher and the CRAs in Monterey County Superior Court alleging violation of the California CCRAA. The Superior Court granted the furnisher's demurrer based on preemption of the CCRAA by the FCRA. The CRAs then removed the case to federal court based on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.1332(d) (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand; the district court denied the motion. Plaintiff moved for class certification and for leave to amend her complaint; the district court denied plaintiff's motions and granted the CRAs' motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed.
Continue Reading...