DALLAS - Arguing their injunction request was “effectively” denied, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several banking associations filed a notice today stating that they are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Court records show the Chamber and banks filed a complaint against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier this month in the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, challenging the CFPB’s new rulemaking on credit card late fees.
The plaintiffs argue the Final Rule, which puts an $8 cap on fees, upends more than a decade of regulations and is unlawful.
Judge Pittman
| Wikipedia
Both the future of the litigation and where the case will be litigated remains uncertain.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman issued an order in the case stating that “the Court has concerns regarding whether the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas is the correct venue to hear this lawsuit.”
“The Court is weary that there appears to be an attenuated nexus to the Fort Worth Division, given only one plaintiff of the six in this matter has even a remote tie to the Fort Worth Division,” the order states. “Accordingly, the Court finds it necessary to ORDER expedited briefing regarding venue.”
On March 20, a day before the deadline, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for expedited consideration of their preliminary injunction.
“The Court understands the urgency with which Plaintiffs feel their case needs to proceed,” the order states. “However, the Northern District of Texas has one of the busiest dockets in the country. Given these statistics, the Court does not have the luxury to give increased attention to certain cases just because a party to the case thinks their case is more important than the rest.
“There are simply too many cases that demand the Court’s full attention.”
The following day, the CFPB filed a motion to transfer, asserting “Washington, D.C. is a better venue for resolving a dispute over a regulation promulgated in D.C that directly affects only large credit card issuers – none of which are based in this Division – than the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas.”
In their brief on venue and response to transfer, the plaintiffs argued that “the public and private interest factors do not outweigh the deference to Plaintiffs’ choice of venue in this case, especially where two of Plaintiffs’ declarants have over ten percent of their total receivables from Texas, with over 800,000 cardholders combined in the Fort Worth region.”
Court records show that on March 25, the Chamber and banking associations filed their notice of appeal, stating that the court had “effectively denied” their injunction motion.
“Plaintiffs filed their motion on March 7, 2024 demonstrating that their members face immediate, serious, and irreparable harm as a result of the Credit Card Penalty Fees Final Rule…,” the notice states.
“The Rule has an unlawfully-short effective date of May 14, 2024, such that Plaintiffs’ members must act immediately to meet their obligations under the new Rule, namely updating, printing, and distributing to banks and retail partners any materials that disclose their late fees (including, for example, credit applications, marketing materials, and disclosure inserts for new credit card mailings) before the effective date.”
The plaintiffs are represented in part by the law firms of Paul Hastings and Cantey Hanger.
Case No. 4:24-CV-213-P
The Southeast Texas Record is owned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.