30 results for 'cat:"Civil Procedure" AND cat:"Consumer Law"'.
J. Brennan denies the consumer's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, ruling her failure to inform the court the amended complaint would include new factual allegations was misleading, while the eight month delay between the filing of the first amended complaint and her motion was not supported by good cause and unnecessarily delayed the litigation.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Brennan, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv1111, NOS: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) - Other Suits, Categories: civil Procedure, consumer Law, Class Action
J. Fouratt grants, in part, the consumer's motion to compel, ruling that because the telemarketing company failed to provide a representative who had knowledge of the topics outlined in the deposition, he will be allowed to conduct a second, limited deposition of another employee who has knowledge of the relevant topics.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Fouratt, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv360, NOS: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) - Other Suits, Categories: civil Procedure, consumer Law, Discovery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Delaney finds the trial court erroneously dismissed the homeowner's consumer sales claim against the restoration company. The one-year statute of limitations contained in the company's terms and services agreement does not apply to such claims, which are subject to a two-year statute of limitations under Ohio law. However, even though the physical contract between the parties was not available at the time the homeowner digitally signed it, he was provided complete documentation at the conclusion of the remediation project and, therefore, the one-year statute of limitations is applicable to his contract and negligence claims, which were properly dismissed. Reversed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Delaney, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-531, Categories: civil Procedure, consumer Law, Contract
J. Chun dismisses the consumer's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims accusing Amazon of passing her information to Audible, which signed her up for a 30-day free Audible trial without her consent. The CLRA notice letter that the consumer sent does not meet the relevant statutory notice requirement because it does not cite what specific CLRA provisions Amazon and Audible violated. If the notice letter is revised, the consumer may plead her case again.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Chun, Filed On: January 23, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1219, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: civil Procedure, Fraud, consumer Law
[Consolidated.] J. Cradle finds the trial court properly denied the car buyers' motion to enforce subpoenas on employees of the dealership. Under the Connecticut rules of practice, emails sent to the individuals were insufficient to effect service. Meanwhile, the buyers cannot challenge the admissibility of several Carfax reports because they never attempted to enter them into evidence at trial and, therefore, the court did not issue a ruling that could be contested on appeal. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Cradle, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: AC45491, Categories: civil Procedure, Fraud, consumer Law
J. Hillman excludes certain experts retained by an engineering company accused of false advertising and omitting material facts concerning a caulking gun. Certain documents had not been disclosed by the discovery deadline, and one expert's methods and assumptions were unreliable. However, the company's concerns about expertise are best addressed in voir dire.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Hillman , Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: 1:12cv2999, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: civil Procedure, consumer Law, Experts
J. Oliver grants a lender dismissal because the borrower's prior suit, which contains nearly identical allegations and relates to the same mortgage loan, remains pending before the court.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Oliver, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv609, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: civil Procedure, Debt Collection, consumer Law
J. Immergut denies the moving company's motion to set aside the default judgment in favor of the consumer's Carmack claim, which alleges that the moving company required him to sign a blank interstate bill of lading before loading his items into the moving truck, but then refused to release his items unless he paid a higher price than agreed upon. The sole owner and chief executive officer of the moving company admitted in her deposition that she received messages and emails confirming the consumer's lawsuit, and the moving company does not provide a valid reason as to why it did not appear in court.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Immergut, Filed On: November 3, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv1243, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: civil Procedure, Fraud, consumer Law
J. Tostrud partially grants the bank and its attorneys' motion to dismiss the consumers' suit alleging an unlawful mortgage foreclosure. A breach-of-contract claim fails because it relies on implausible interpretations of the parties' contract, and a Truth in Lending Act claim fails since the consumers have not plausibly alleged that the bank failed to credit a payment to a loan account as of the date of receipt, but rather that they refunded the payments after receiving them. The harms alleged therefore stem from the foreclosure, rather than conduct that would fall under the Truth in Lending Act. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims largely survive since the documents supporting the motion to dismiss them are not embraced by the pleadings and so cannot be considered for the purposes of this motion.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv3056, NOS: Truth in Lending - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: civil Procedure, consumer Law, Banking / Lending
J. Trauger grants partial summary judgment to the timeshare plaintiffs in this lawsuit concerning the defendant company's efforts to help "timeshare owners get out of their timeshare obligations." The timeshare plaintiffs contend that the defendant company is engaged in a fraudulent scheme that encourages timeshare owners to breach their agreements. They are entitled to summary judgment on the defendant company's standing argument, along with certain other affirmative defenses, which the court says are "facially without merit."
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Trauger, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: 3:20cv599, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: civil Procedure, Trade, consumer Law
J. Kennedy finds that the lower court properly denied the appellants' motion for class certification in this lawsuit concerning the use of "redemption cards" by a sports card manufacturer. The redemption cards are used in place of actual autographed cards when the autographed cards are unavailable. The consumers brought claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but they fail to show that "common legal issues predominate." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Kennedy, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 05-22-01338-CV, Categories: civil Procedure, consumer Law, Class Action
J. Montalvo denies a motion to amend judgment brought by a consumer who had sued a credit reporting company over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act following a dispute with another company over a payment plan. The consumer never formally requested that a “statement of dispute” be added to his credit report and only “perfunctorily” explained his dispute to the credit agency, and his assertion that the court erred on this issue is “incorrect.”
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Montalvo, Filed On: July 7, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv114, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: civil Procedure, consumer Law, Contract