Texas Federal Court Requests Briefing on Compliant Date of Payment Provisions in Payday Loan Rule | Ballard Spahr srl
Texas Federal District Court heard lawsuit from two business groups challenging CFPB’s 2017 last pay / auto title / high rate installment loan rule (2017 rule) entered an order request the parties to file submissions regarding a compliance date for the payment provisions of the 2017 rule. The order states that the court is requesting the additional briefing “regarding what would be the appropriate compliance date if the court dismissed the petition in summary judgment of the plaintiffs and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment ”.
Last week, the CFPB filed a request to lift the suspension of the date for bringing the payment arrangements into conformity. The CFPB’s request followed the filing by professional groups of a potentially relevant notice of appeal procedure (notice). In the notice, the business groups informed the district court that the Fifth Circuit had ordered an additional briefing on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Collins vs. Yellin on the referral from the Supreme Court of Collins at the fifth circuit and on Cashing all U.S. checks which is pending in the fifth circuit. Trade groups have pointed out that the two Collins and Cashing all U.S. checks involve the issue of appropriate remedy for actions taken by an agency manager while unconstitutionally immune from dismissal by the president.
In its motion to lift the suspension of the date for bringing the payment arrangements into conformity, the CFPB argued that the two cases did not justify delay by the district court in ruling on the counterclaims for summary judgment. He asked the court to lift the suspension of the compliance date if it nevertheless wishes to postpone its decision until the Fifth Circuit rules in the two cases.
The district court order directs parties to file their factums by August 6 and allows responses to be filed by August 16. It also states that “[t]The court will examine the case with full knowledge of the facts upon receipt of the parties’ responses and no reply memorandum will be required. In our view, there would be no compelling reason for the tribunal to request factums at this stage if it contemplated ruling on the merits, even in part, in favor of the industry. Thus, we see this demand as a worrying development from an industry point of view.