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 the order in Consumer Financial Protection Board v. CashCall Inc. (C.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in MacDonald v. CashCall (D.N.J.):
ATL: “Katten Muchin Sued By Bottom-Feeding Former Client.”
Complaint in CashCall v. Katten Muchin Rosenman (Cal. Super Ct. — Orange County) here:
HT.
Here is the opinion in Parm v. National Bank of California NA.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.