Banking associations aver Fort Worth is the proper venue against CFPB

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Contact

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

 

On August 12, several banking associations (plaintiffs) filed an opposition to the CFPB’s motion to dismiss in its ongoing litigation over the proper venue for the CFPB’s credit card late fee final rule (the Rule). The Bureau argued that the lone plaintiff located in Texas did not have associational standing, and therefore the matter should be heard in the U.S. District Court for D.C. while plaintiffs argued that the matter should remain in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division).

As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB argued that the only plaintiff located in the current Texas venue should be dismissed for lack of standing since the Bureau alleged the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Fort Worth organization’s interests were “germane to the organization’s purpose.”

In their opposition to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs asserted the CFPB’s additional requirements for associational standing were unsupported and urged the court to follow established case law, emphasizing the broad interpretation of the germaneness requirement. To establish associational standing, plaintiffs must show that (i) its members would have stood to sue individually, (ii) the interests it seeks to protect were relevant to the organization’s purpose, and (iii) neither the claim nor the relief requested requires individual members’ participation.

The plaintiffs argued they have associational standing because the Rule in question affected the Fort Worth economy and the credit card market, which were central to the plaintiff associations’ mission. Plaintiffs detailed the harms to its members and the Fort Worth area, (i) naming six large credit card issuers operating in Fort Worth that will be affected directly by the Rule, (ii) at least 15 smaller credit card issuers that are members will feel pressure to lower late fees, and (iii) multiple members offering co-branded cards will also be affected.

The CFPB filed a reply brief, and the court scheduled a hearing on August 27 to rule on the motion.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Written by:

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide