On August 19, the CFPB
filed a reply brief in support of its efforts to transfer litigation involving credit card late fees from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (located in Fort Worth) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.). The case involves challenges brought by plaintiff banking associations and business groups regarding the CFPB’s final rule on credit card late fees finalized in March. This is the latest motion by the CFPB seeking to transfer this case. While the district court judge previously granted the Bureau’s prior motions to transfer, the Fifth Circuit reversed those rulings.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB has argued that the only plaintiff located in Texas, a Fort Worth based business group, should be dismissed for lack of standing since the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Fort Worth organization’s interests were “germane to the organization’s purpose” of promoting the business climate in Fort Worth. Based on this lack of standing, the CFPB argued the court should dismiss the plaintiff entirely and transfer the case to the D.D.C.
The plaintiffs argued the CFPB’s arguments (relating to associational standing) were unsupported. The plaintiffs also asserted the litigation is germane to its organizational purpose germaneness requirement because the rule in question affects the Fort Worth economy and the credit card market, which are central to the plaintiff associations’ mission.
In its reply brief, the CFPB argued four points. First, that the Fort Worth member still has not established that its interests are germane to its Fort Worth specific organizational mission. Second, that the plaintiffs assert unfounded “hyperbolic objections” that granting the CFPB’s motion would upend settled law around associational standing. Third, the plaintiff’s theory of transactional venue would undermine statutory venue limits which require suits against the federal government to be brought in a venue where a substantial part of events giving rise to the claim occurred. And fourth, that the court should reject the plaintiffs’ invitation to dismiss the case altogether if it finds that the Fort Worth entity lacks standing and instead simply transfer the case to the D.D.C to “avoid chaos.”
