Here are the materials in Seneca v. Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council Inc. (W.D. Wis.):
Here. An excerpt:
CashCall, Inc., made unsecured, high-interest loans to consumers throughout the country. After attracting unwanted attention from regulators, it sought to avoid state usury and licensing laws by using an entity operating on an Indian reservation. CashCall paid for that entity to issue loans and then purchased the loans days later. The loan agreements contained a choice-of-law provision calling for the application of tribal law, so they would not be subject to the law of borrowers’ home States, which would have prohibited the loans. CashCall sought advice from a scholar of federal Indian law, who opined that the scheme “should work but likely won’t.” His concern proved well founded. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought this action against CashCall, its CEO, and several affiliated companies, alleging that the scheme was an “unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice,” 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B), because CashCall demanded payment from consumers under the pretense that the loans were legally enforceable obligations, when in fact they were invalid under state law. The district court found the defendants liable and imposed a civil penalty of $10.3 million, but the court declined to order restitution.
Original report here.
1. Whether federal plaintiffs seeking to challenge their non-federal prosecution on the basis of bad faith face a heightened pleading standard.
2. Whether actions taken by the clerk of a non-federal court to impede review of a habeas petition obviate the petitioner’s need to further exhaust remedies in that court.
Lower court materials here.