Amicus Briefs

January 9, 2009 | Filed under: Credit Reporting | Tagged with: FCRA
Court:
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Congress’s findings and statement of purpose when it enacted the FCRA, its ongoing oversight, and its recent amendments demonstrate the significance it rightly placed on the integrity and confidentiality of the nation’s consumer reporting system. Congress also recognized that public enforcement agencies do not have the capability to enforce the FCRA by themselves. Congress instead gave primary responsibility to the persons with the greatest interest in accomplishing such a task – individual consumers policing their own files, protecting their own privacy and financial interests, and when necessary, enforcing the FCRA’s private statutory remedies. Affirming the opinion would seriously undermine these objectives.
 

June 22, 2008 | Filed under: Forced Arbitration
Court:
Louisiana Court of Appeals

NACA is concerned about the increasing use of private, secret arbitration proceedings before the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) to collect consumer debts. In this particular case, NACA is concerned with the creditors practices of attempting to confirm NAF arbitration awards against Louisiana consumers who did not consent to arbitration-- including consumers who are the victims of identity theft or mistaken identity, and who do not owe the underlying debt.
 

June 4, 2008 | Filed under: Forced Arbitration
Court:
Fifth Circuit

Case involves issues of substantial public interest that should be clarified by the court, including that an arbitrator cannot declare their own jurisdiction, and that a party seeking to confirm an arbitration must prove the existence of a contract to arbitrate. Filed February 28, 2008. Written by David L. Koen, Marisa C. Katz, and NACA member David A. Szwak, of Bodenheiner, Jones, and Szwak.
 

May 20, 2008 | Filed under: Debt Collection | Tagged with: Utilities
Court:
Minnesota Supreme Court

The Lower Court created new law when it barred judicial rate interpretation and ignored this court's binding precendent to the contrary. The Lower Court's ruling would deprive Minnesota courts of the ability to adjudicate insurance coverage disputes. Filed May 20, 2008. Written by David M. Cialkowski and Hart L. Robinovich of Zimmerman Reed P.L.L.P., with counsel of Stephen Gardner, National Association of Consumer Advocates.
 

March 7, 2008 | Filed under: Debt Collection
Court:
Minnesota Supreme Court

This case poses a simple question, which is of great consequence to Louisiana consumers: in a judicial proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, must the plantiff prove that the parties entered into a contract in which they agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration, before the court can grant the motion to confirm the award? The answer is clearly "yes."
 

January 16, 2008 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices
Court:
Massachusetts Supreme Court

This brief of amici curiae in support of the Iannacchino plaintiffs-appellants is collectively submitted by seven public interest organizations including NACA.
 

December 10, 2007 | Filed under: Mortgage, Real Estate & Housing | Tagged with: Predatory Lending
Court:
Maryland Supreme Court

Amicus Brief, written by Greg Care of Public Justice Center, supporting a constitutional challenge to Maryland's forclosure laws.
 

December 18, 2006 | Filed under: Credit Reporting | Tagged with: FCRA
Court:
US Supreme Court

NACA's amicus brief in Safeco v. Burr and Geico v. Edo Fair Credit Reporting cases before the United States Supreme Court.
 

October 1, 2006 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: False Advertising
Court:
US Supreme Court

Brief by NACA and other consumer organizations stating that the Illinois Supreme Court erred in concluding that FTC consent orders constitute federal authorization to engage in deceptive advertising, and that if left uncorrected, the Illinois Supreme Court decision will dramatically hinder state and federal efforts to regulate deceptive trade practices. October 2006.
 

May 12, 2006 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Federal Communications Act
Court:
US Supreme Court

NACA brief written to express the following: that the need for state wireless consumer protection laws has grown with the wireless industry, a growth that has been accompanied by widespread unfair, misleading and deceptive business practices. States must protect wireless consumers because the FCC does not. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit's decision harms millions of consumers nationwide.
 

Pages