Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Consumer Advocacy Center Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 7, 2023
Docket8:19-cv-01998
StatusUnknown

This text of Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Consumer Advocacy Center Inc. (Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Consumer Advocacy Center Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Consumer Advocacy Center Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 Bureau of Consumer Financial CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01998 MWF (KS)

Protection, et al., 13 FINAL JUDGMENT

AND ORDER AS TO DEFENDANT 14 Plaintiffs, KAINE WEN

15 v.

16 Court: Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald Consumer Advocacy Center Inc., d/b/a 17 Date: May 1, 2023 Premier Student Loan Center, et al., Time: 9:30 AM 18 Place: Courtroom 5A Defendants. 19

20 21 Plaintiffs the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau), the State 22 of Minnesota, the State of North Carolina, and the People of the State of California 23 (collectively, Plaintiffs) have filed a motion for partial summary judgment pursuant 24 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 against Defendant Kaine Wen (Defendant 25 Wen). After considering the pleadings, declarations, exhibits, summary judgment 26 briefing, and the entire record in this matter, this Court hereby orders and adjudges 27 1 1 that the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 3 FINDINGS 4 I 5 1. Plaintiffs commenced this civil action on October 21, 2019, to obtain 6 injunctive, equitable, and monetary relief and civil penalties from multiple 7 defendants, including Defendant Wen in his individual capacity and as trustee of 8 the Kaine Wen 2017 Trust. 9 2. Plaintiffs alleged that from at least November 2015 until October 10 2019, Defendant Wen and his co-defendants operated a nationwide debt-relief 11 enterprise that deceived federal-student-loan borrowers and collected over $95 12 million in illegal advance fees. 13 3. The operative complaint, the Third Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 14 314-315), alleged violations of sections 1031(a) and 1036(a) of the Consumer 15 Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a); the 16 Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (TCFAPA), 17 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c)(2), based on alleged violations of the Telemarketing Sales 18 Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. pt. 310; the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act 19 (MNCFA), Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68-.694; the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade 20 Practices Act (MNDTPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.43-.48; the North Carolina Debt 21 Adjusting Act (NCDAA), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-423 et seq.; the North Carolina 22 Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act (NCUDPA), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; and the 23 California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et 24 seq., in connection with the Defendants’ marketing and sale of Debt-Relief 25 Services. The Third Amended Complaint also included claims for avoidance of 26 fraudulent transfers under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, 28 U.S.C. 27 2 1 §§ 3001-3308, and the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, Cal. Civ. 2 Code §§ 3439-3439.14. 3 4. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunctive relief, damages, rescission or 4 reformation of contracts, refunds of moneys paid, restitution, disgorgement or 5 compensation for unjust enrichment, civil money penalties, and other monetary 6 and equitable relief. 7 5. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because it 8 was brought under Federal consumer financial law, 12 U.S.C. § 5565(a)(1), 9 presents a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Bureau is an agency of the 10 United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1345. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the 11 States’ (as defined below) claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper in 12 this district pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 5564(f), because Defendant Wen is located, 13 resides, or does business in this district. 14 6. The Third Amended Complaint states claims against Defendant Wen 15 upon which relief can be granted. 16 7. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact concerning the 17 liability of Defendant Wen for the unlawful practices charged against him in 18 Counts I through III, V, VII, IX, XI, XVII through XX, and XXII of the Third 19 Amended Complaint, or the amount of redress and civil money penalties resulting 20 from Defendant Wen’s unlawful practices. 21 8. From at least November 5, 2015, through October 23, 2019, the 22 Student Loan Debt-Relief Companies (as defined below) operated as a common 23 enterprise controlled by Wen and his business partner. Accordingly, each may be 24 held liable for the illegal acts and practices of the others, FTC. v. Grant Connect, 25 LLC, 763 F.3d 1094, 1105 (9th Cir. 2014); FTC v. Network Servs. Depot, Inc., 26 617 F.3d 1127, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2010); FTC v. All. Document Preparation, 27 3 1 296 F. Supp. 3d 1197, 1203-1204 (C.D. Cal. 2017). 2 9. The Student Loan Debt-Relief Companies are “covered person[s]” as 3 that term is defined by the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6)(A), (19), because they 4 engaged in offering or providing services which purported to modify the terms of 5 consumers’ federal student loans. 6 10. Defendant Wen is a “related person” as that term is defined by the 7 CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(C), because he owned, controlled, and managed the 8 Student Loan Debt-Relief Companies, and materially participated in the conduct of 9 their affairs. 10 11. Defendant Wen is a “covered person” as that term is defined by the 11 CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6)(A), (19), because he is a “related person,” 12 U.S.C. 12 § 5481(25)(B). 13 12. The Student Loan Debt-Relief Companies engaged in a “debt-relief 14 service” as defined in the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(o), because they offered and 15 provided services that purported to renegotiate, settle, or alter the terms of payment 16 or other terms of the debt for consumers’ unsecured federal student loans by 17 submitting requests for loan consolidation and income driven repayment plans to 18 consumers’ student-loan servicers. 19 13. The Student Loan Debt-Relief Companies engaged in “telemarketing” 20 and are “telemarketers,” as defined in the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Easley v. Rich Food Services, Inc.
535 S.E.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
973 P.2d 527 (California Supreme Court, 1999)
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc.
500 N.W.2d 788 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1993)
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc.
490 N.W.2d 888 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1992)
Meyer v. Dygert
156 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (D. Minnesota, 2001)
Federal Trade Commission v. Grant Connect, LLC
763 F.3d 1094 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Alliance Document Preparation
296 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (C.D. California, 2017)
McIntosh v. Prince
9 V.I. 3 (Municipal Court of The Virgin Islands, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Consumer Advocacy Center Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bureau-of-consumer-financial-protection-v-consumer-advocacy-center-inc-cacd-2023.