Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether a claim for legal restitution triggers the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. 2. Whether a litigant may validly waive a constitutional right at a time when binding circuit precedent clearly forecloses any exercise of that right.
Lower court materials here.
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.
Briefs here.
Here is today’s order list.
The Court granted review in AMG Capital Management LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. Here is the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in FTC v. AMG Capital Management LLC. District court materials here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Grote:
Here is the petition in Neff v. United States:
Questions presented:
1. Does a misrepresentation about the true identity of the owner of a business during settlement negotiations to resolve a civil lawsuit constitute a scheme to defraud the litigant of money or property in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes?
2. Is the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity wholly inapplicable in a circumstance where payday loans are made by a Native American tribe in affiliation with an entity acting as an “arm of the tribe” where such loans are made at interest rates in excess of state regulations, thus rendering the loans ipso facto unlawful debts in violation of the RICO statute?
3. Does the government have to prove willfulness to establish a RICO conspiracy to collect an unlawful debt?Lower court materials here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Neff:
Briefs:
Here are the materials in United States v. Neff:
ATL: “Katten Muchin Sued By Bottom-Feeding Former Client.”
Complaint in CashCall v. Katten Muchin Rosenman (Cal. Super Ct. — Orange County) here:
HT.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.