Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against TMCC and Troy Campise, the Sales Manager of Lakeside Toyota, an automobile dealership, alleging that TMCC and Campise defrauded him by leading him to believe that a lease for a Toyota Corolla automobile would be tax exempt because the co-lessee, DELF, Inc., was a non-profit organization for which plaintiff is the registered agent and chief executive officer. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the lease at issue was made to an organization as well as a natural person and therefore cannot be a consumer lease under the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), 15 U.S.C. 1667-1667f. Because the CLA does not apply to a lease that is made to an organization, the court need not determine whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the lease was for personal use, rather than for agricultural, business, or commercial purposes. View "Dixon v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against TMCC and Troy Campise, the Sales Manager of Lakeside Toyota, an automobile dealership, alleging that TMCC and Campise defrauded him by leading him to believe that a lease for a Toyota Corolla automobile would be tax exempt because the co-lessee, DELF, Inc., was a non-profit organization for which plaintiff is the registered agent and chief executive officer. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the lease at issue was made to an organization as well as a natural person and therefore cannot be a consumer lease under the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), 15 U.S.C. 1667-1667f. Because the CLA does not apply to a lease that is made to an organization, the court need not determine whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the lease was for personal use, rather than for agricultural, business, or commercial purposes. View "Dixon v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp." on Justia Law

Wells Fargo appealed a jury verdict finding that it committed violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act (TCDA), Tex. Fin. Code 392.001-392.404, and awarding damages and attorney's fees. The court concluded that plaintiffs had standing to bring their TCDA claims; the economic loss rule does not bar plaintiffs' TDCA claims; the evidence supports a finding that Wells Fargo violated section 392.304(a)(12); the evidence does not support the jury's award to plaintiffs for expenses; the evidence does not support a finding that Wells Fargo violated section 392.301(a)(3) so there is no basis upon which to award plaintiffs statutory damages; and the court affirmed in all other respects. View "McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

A jury found that PlastiPure and CertiChem violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), by making false statements of facts about Eastman's plastic resin product called Tritan. The district court entered an injunction against both companies and the companies appealed, challenging the jury verdict and the injunction. The court held that the Act prohibits false commercial speech even when that speech makes scientific claims. The court rejected the companies' contention that the district court should not have entered its injunction because the companies' statements about Tritan containing estrogenic activity (EA) from BPA are not actionable statements under the Act. The court concluded that application of the Act to the companies’ promotional statements will not stifle academic freedom or intrude on First Amendment values; the injunction only applies to statements made “in connection with any advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of goods or services;" the companies may continue to pursue their research and publish their results; and the companies may not push their product by making the claims the jury found to be false and misleading. The court rejected the companies' argument that the jury's verdict must be reversed where a reasonable jury could have concluded that the companies' statements were false and misleading. The court rejected the companies' claims of error in the jury instructions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Eastman Chemical Co. v. PlastiPure, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the Bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1963 et seq., by failing to post an external notice of fees on its ATMs. While the suit was pending but before class certification, Congress amended the EFTA to eliminate the external notice requirement. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim and denied class certification. The court concluded that plaintiff has standing to bring her claim where Congress's determination that consumers were entitled to the fee information they need to decline a transaction before investing the time needed to initiate it protects a substantive, if small, right, and its deprivation is an injury-in-fact that allows plaintiff to pursue her claim; the Bank's attempt to "pick off" plaintiff's claim before the court could decide the issue of class certification fits squarely within the "relation back" doctrine, which saves her claim from mootness at this stage; the EFTA amendment eliminating the "two notice" provision does not apply retroactively to plaintiff's claim; and the EFTA amendment poses no more a barrier for putative class members than it does for plaintiff, for claims alleging violations before the amendment was enacted. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's denial of class certification and remanded for further considerations. View "Mabary v. Home Town Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking statutory damages under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1640(a)(2)(A), claiming that Buy Direct (dba Direct Buy) failed to provide the dates that payments would be due on an installment contract for membership in Direct Buy's wholesale membership club. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Direct Buy, concluding that Direct Buy failed to make the required disclosures to plaintiffs, who therefore were entitled to damages. View "Lea, et al. v. Buy Direct, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit pro se under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., against Equable, as successor in interest to Hilco. Plaintiff alleged that Hilco obtained his consumer credit report without a permissible purpose or plaintiff's consent, in violation of the section 1681(b). The magistrate court granted Equable's motion for summary judgment on the ground that certain discovery responses showed that plaintiff's suit was time barred under section 1681p(1) because he did not file suit within two years of receiving the May 2009 report. The court affirmed, concluding that, in light of Hyde v. Hibernia Nat'l Bank in Jefferson Parish, the limitations period began to run when plaintiff discovered that Hilco had obtained his credit report without his consent. View "Mack v. Equable Ascent Financial, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Progressive for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),15 U.s.C. 1692 et seq., as well as violations of Texas state law. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Progressive's unaccepted offer of judgment rendered plaintiff's claims moot. The court concluded, however, that Progressive's incomplete offer of judgment did not render plaintiff's FDCPA claims moot. Under the FDCPA, an individual claimant was eligible to recover actual damages under section 1692k(a)(1). Plaintiff requested actual damages. Progressive's Rule 68 offer of judgment did not offer to meet plaintiff's full demand for relief because it did not include actual damages. Therefore, Progressive's offer left a live controversy for the court to resolve, plaintiff maintained a personal stake in the outcome of the action, and the offer did not render plaintiff's FDCPA claims moot. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Payne v. Progressive Fin. Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

Serna defaulted on a loan he obtained through the Internet that was subsequently purchased by Samara. Attorney Onwuteaka, who owns Samara, obtained a default judgment and attempted to collect. Serna then filed suit in federal court, alleging that because he neither resided nor entered the loan agreement in Harris County where the judgment entered, the suit violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, venue requirement. A magistrate found Serna’s suit was untimely under the FDCPA’s one-year limitations period because he filed his complaint more than one year after Onwuteaka filed his petition in the underlying debt-collection action. The Fifth Circuit reversed, that the alleged FDCPA violation arose only after Serna received notice of the underlying debt collection action. The FDCPA provides that a debtor may bring an action “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” A violation of does not occur until the debt-collection suit is filed and the alleged debtor is notified of the suit.View "Serna v. Law Office of Joseph Onwuteaka" on Justia Law

This case involved the foreclosure sale of certain property owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of their claims against BAC and NDE under the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), Tex. Fin. Code 392.304(a), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 17.41 et seq., and Texas common law. The court concluded that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim against BAC for misrepresenting the status or nature of the services that it rendered. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the TDCA claims under section 392.304(a)(14) as to that basis, remanding for further proceedings. Consequently, the court also reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' request for an accounting from NDE. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Miller, et al. v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., et al." on Justia Law