A company that is being sued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for allegedly scamming first responders and players in the National Football League has opposed a motion filed by the CFPB seeking to stay arguments in its case pending the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law v. CFPB, because its case avoids the constitutional questions being discussed about the CFPB before the Supreme Court.
The CFPB’s motion for a stay in its proceedings before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals can be accessed by clicking here. A copy of RD Legal Funding’s opposition can be accessed by clicking here.
The CFPB sued RD Legal back in 2017 alleging that the defendants scammed first responders and former NFLers out of millions of dollars “by luring them into costly advances on settlement payouts with lies about the terms of the deals.”
A federal judge in New York ruled that that leadership structure of the CFPB was unconstitutional, a decision that the CFPB had been appealing to the Second Circuit. But now that the CFPB has reversed its position and the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments about whether its leadership structure is constitutional, the CFPB sought to have the case before the Second Circuit stayed. RD Legal is opposing that request.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Have you signed up for tomorrow’s webinar on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments in the Seila Law case and what it could mean for the ARM industry? Sign up here.]
“… unless the Supreme Court finds the removal provision unconstitutional and unseverable, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Seila Law will not alleviate the need for this Court to eventually address most of the issues in the underlying case,” RD Legal noted in its opposition to the CFPB’s motion. “Although Seila Law implicates some of the constitutional issues that are also before this Court, this Court should hear oral argument as scheduled, consider whether the merits issues will resolve the appeal without the need to pass on the constitutional issues, and then, only if necessary, postpone any ruling until after a decision is issued in Seila Law.“
