![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
November 18, 2020, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California; January 27, 2023, Filed
No. 18-15431, No. 18-15887
In Case No. 18-15431, Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. ("Nationwide") appeals the district court's conclusion that it engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a). In Case No. 18-15887, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") cross-appeals the district court's decision to deny restitution. We consolidated the appeals for appellate consideration.
In 2015, the CFPB brought a civil enforcement action against Nationwide. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Nationwide made materially misleading representations regarding its loan repayment program. On September 8, 2017, the district court issued an opinion and order imposing a statutory penalty of $7,930,000 and permanent injunctive relief. In the same order, the district court declined to award the $73,955,169 in restitution sought by the CFPB. Both parties timely filed appeals.
During the pendency of the cross-appeals, on June 29, 2020, the Supreme [*3] Court held the CFPB Director's for-cause removal protection violated the Constitution and severed the offending provision. See Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2211, 207 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2020) ("Seila Law I"). Shortly after, on July 8, 2020, Director Kathleen Kraninger ratified the CFPB's pre-Seila Law I decisions "to file the lawsuit against [Nationwide], and to file a notice of appeal" to this court.
On November 18, 2020, we held oral argument on the cross-appeals. That same day, we vacated submission of the cross-appeals pending our court's resolution of CFPB v. Seila Law LLC, No. 17-56324 ("Seila Law II"). On December 29, 2020, our court issued the decision in Seila Law II, 997 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2021) (amended on May 14, 2021). On January 12, 2021, we further vacated submission of the cross-appeals pending our decision in CFPB v. CashCall, Inc., No. 18-55407. On May 23, 2022, our court issued an opinion in CFPB v. CashCall, Inc., 35 F.4th 734 (9th Cir. 2022). Furthermore, while the cross-appeals were held in abeyance, on June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761, 210 L. Ed. 2d 432 (2021), which concerns remedies for constitutional separation-of-powers violations.
On May 24, 2022, we ordered supplemental briefing from both parties, which was completed on August 2, 2022. Exercising our jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate the district court's order and remand, allowing [*4] it to reassess the case under the changed legal landscape since its initial order and opinion. While we do not limit the issues for consideration on remand, we specifically bring the district court's attention to the following questions:
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2190 *; 2023 WL 566112
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellants.CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
Prior History: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02106-RS. Richard Seeborg, Chief District Judge, Presiding.
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145923, 2017 WL 3948396 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2017)
Disposition: VACATED AND REMANDED.
district court, cross-appeals, Seila Law, questions, restitution, parties, vacated, appeals, supplemental briefing, funding mechanism, ratification, for-cause, violating, removal