WASHINGTON–In a case that has been already been batted back and forth between courts, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has filed a motion to dismiss the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce as a plaintiff in a case over for lack of standing and if granted, transfer the case involving the CFPB’s proposed credit card late fee cap, which would prohibit card issuers with more than one-million open accounts from charging more than $8 for late fees, unless they could prove higher fees are necessary to cover their costs.
The CFPB is seeking to have the court transferred back to the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, where it has been previously transferred only to have that decision overturned more than once.
In its brief, the CFPB is arguing the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce cannot satisfy the test for associational standing and once Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce is dismissed, the remaining plaintiffs cannot establish that venue is proper in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas.
Notice Filed
On July 18, upon remand from the Fifth Circuit, the CFPB filed its notice of supplemental authority in support of its still pending motion to dismiss or transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, and brief in support of its motion. After reviewing the CFPB’s notice of supplemental authority and Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in FCA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Judge Mark Pittman issued an order in which he wrote that he “is deeply concerned with the issue of associational standing” of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce to prosecute the remaining claims in the case.
Judge Pittman requested a “full briefing on the issue of associational standing and how it relates to the facts and arguments in this case. It is imperative that the Court consider standing before expending any additional resources evaluating the merits of Plaintiff’s [sic] requested relief.”
Response Dates
The plaintiffs now have until August 12 to respond, with CFPB’s reply due by August 19, 2024. The court will hear the motion on August 27, 2024.