Amicus Briefs

The National Association of Consumer Advocates takes an active role in advocating consumer interests by filing amicus briefs in a number of leading consumer protection cases before the United States Supreme Court and other courts across the country. Whenever possible we will make these amicus briefs available for the benefit of our members. Amicus briefs currently available are listed below.

If you would like to submit an Amicus Brief for consideration by NACA, please use the form you can download here. (Request for NACA Amicus Brief Consideration) The completed document can be emailed to ira@naca.net.

6/22/2008
Chase Bank N.A. v. Vincent L. Leggio, Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, State of Louisiana, Civil Case, Docket Number 43,567-CA
Download File
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.

6/4/2008
NCO Portfolio Management Company, Inc. v. Bertram Gougisha, Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana, No. 07-CA-604 and 07-CA-884
Download File
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.

5/20/2008
Amicus Brief filed in the case of Irene Hoffman, et al, v. Northern States Power Company, D/B/A Excel Energy, No. A062275 of the State of MInnesota Supreme Court
Download File
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.

3/7/2008
Amicus Brief on NAF's Abuse of Consumers in Debt Collection Cases
Download File
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."

1/16/2008
Amicus Brief in the case of Joseph Iannacchino, Victor Marchese and Soledad Berrios v. Ford Motor Company
Download File
This brief of amici curiae in support of the Iannacchino plaintiffs-appellants is collectively submitted by seven public interest organizations including NACA.

Amici strongly advocate for the preservation of Chapter 93A's injury requirement as it has been defined by the seminal "Leardi" decision and urge the court in this case to both clarify "Hershenow" and integrate it into the line of jurisprudence that, as understood by Amici, compells a finding that the Iannacchino plaintiffs-appellants suffered a cognizable injury under Chapter 93A.

12/10/2007
The Subprime Lending Crisis and Its Effect in Maryland
Download File
Amicus Brief, written by Greg Care of Public Justice Center, supporting a constitutional challenge to Maryland's forclosure laws.

12/18/2006
Safeco v. Burr / Geico v. Edo Final Amicus Brief.
Download File
NACA's amicus brief in Safeco v. Burr and Geico v. Edo Fair Credit Reporting cases before the United States Supreme Court.

10/1/2006
Sharon A. Price, et al., v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Supreme Court of the United States.
Download File
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.

5/12/2006
Mike Hatch, Attorney General of Minnesota, v. CELLCO Partnership, D/B/A Verizon Wireless, et al., Supreme Court of the United States.
Download File
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.

4/20/2006
Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust and Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara, Case No. 1156354.
Download File
This brief states that the judgement of the Superior Court should be reversed because the OCC's poor track record enforcing consumer protection laws shows that it cannot be trusted with the enormous task of enforcing all applicable consumer protection laws against national banks;and the OCC has a financial incentive to please the banks it regulates.

3/27/2006
Wadley v. Experian, 4th District Court, Final.
Download File
The District Court erroneously accepted Experian's "accuracy only" argument and improperly dismissed the claim regarding its reinventigation duties. Because the District Court was misled by Experian regarding both the statutory scheme and this Court's case law, the court erred by not discussing the difference in the duties that Congress has required. The District Court's omission is shown by the absence of any citation to § 1681i and the lack of any discussion regarding the law and facts of this reinvestigation claim.

2/22/2006
Will Salley, Jr. v. Option One Mortgage Corp.; CIT Group; John Doe Trustee, John Doe Trust and John Doe's #'s 1-100; Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District.
Download File
This brief states that predatory lending is a public policy crisis, which is perpetuated by mandatory arbitration clauses that contain the kind of provisions found in this case. Further, that mandatory arbitration clauses such as Option One's are a central part of a predatory lender's strategy to avoid scrutiny of its practices. This brief was written by Michael D. Donovan, and is co-signed by NACA, the National Consumer Law Center, Community Legal Services, and AARP.

8/5/2005
Craig L. Whitaker v. M. T. Automotive, Inc., d/b/a Montrose Toyota, on appeal from the Summit County Court of Appeals, Ninth Appellate District.
Download File
NACA brief written in support of Mr. Whitaker's appeal, arising from a jury's finding of eleven different acts of unfair, deceptive or unconscionable conduct under Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA"). Although the CSPA allows a consumer victim to "recover his damages," the Appellate Court erroneously limited Mr. Whitaker to recovering only "economic damages." The Appellate Court mistakenly believed that it had "previously determined that plaintiffs may recover only economic damages under the CSPA. This brief, filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio, was written by Ronald Burdge, Laura K. McDowall, Thomas Domonoske, and Clair Dickinson.

12/16/2004
Jaliyah Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, DE, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey.
Download File
Motion by NACA, AARP, and Consumers League of New Jersey, to file amicus brief in the payday lending case of Jaliyah Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, DE. This short brief was written by Deborah Zuckerman, AARP, and Ira Rheingold, NACA.

12/13/2004
Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless, et al., v. Mike Hatch, Attorney General of Minnesota, United States District Court, Minnesota
Download File
NACA, together with AARP and National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, argued that Congress did not intend to preempt state consumer protection laws like the Minnesota Wireless Consumer Act, because the Act neither regulates nor directly affects wireless carriers’ rates. The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a “hands-off” approach to the wireless industry, and the industry’s reliance on voluntary consumer code for wireless services does not adequately protectconsumers. Therefore, states have responded to the growing use of and problems associated with wireless service by studying, introducing or enacting additional consumer protections relating to service quality and carriers’ business practices. This Act is one such law. This brief was written by Patrick Pearlman of W. Va. Public Service Comm., Karlen Reed, MA Asst. Attorney General, Christine Mailloux of The Utility Reform Network, and Maureen Grady and David Bergman, Consumer Counsel.

10/19/2004
Grafton Partners L.P., Allied Capital Partners L.P., Six Sigma LLC, and its members v. Superior Court in and for the County of Alameda, Respondent, and Price Waterhousecoopers, Real Party In Interest.
Download File
NACA, together with Consumer Attorneys of California, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, and Association of Trial Lawyers in America, argues that "the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right that has been an integral part of our justice system for over a hundred years. Its waiver cannot occur freely." This brief, filed in the Supreme Court of California, was written by James C. Sturdevant and Monique Olivier.

10/8/2004
Siddeeq Jackson and Bashera Abdul-Hadi, H/W v. Metro Nissan, Inc., Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Download File
NACA, together with National Consumer Law Center, and Community Legal Services, Inc., filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, supporting the appellent, Bashera Abdul-Hadi in a fight against deceptive practices. This brief was written by Michael D. Donovan and David H. Searles of Donovan Searles, LLC.

9/8/2004
Ameican Bankers Association, et al. v. Lockyer, Attorney General, 9th Circuit.
Download File
NACA, together with AARP, ACLU of Northern California, California Public Interest Research Group, Consumer Federation of California, Consumers Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Evan Hendricks, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and US PIRG, filed this amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, supporting the California Financial Information Privacy Act, Cal. Fin. Code § 4050 et seq. (2004), popularly known as "SB1." This brief was written by Chris Hoofnagle of Electronic Privacy Information Center.

8/25/2004
PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Center Partners Partnership.
Download File
NACA argues that the Texas Supreme Court should reconsider its opinion, 2004 WL 1533274, and correct some of the opinion language to reflect the current state of implied warranty law, especially sincethe parties neither raised nor briefed implied warranty issues.

7/12/2004
Sharon Price & Michael Fruth, et al., v. Philip Morris, Inc., Illinois Supreme Court.
Download File
This brief holds that class actions are an indispensable procedural device in cases involving relatively small money damages for large numbers of people, and the unsupported contention that class actions harm consumers by increasing the costs of goods and services has no basis in fact. This brief was written by Steve Gardner, Law Offices of Stephen Gardner, PC, Leslie Brueckner, Paul Bland, and Arthur Bryant, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, and Eugene Pavalon, Pavalon, Gifford, Laatsch and Marino.

5/1/2004
Koons v. Nigh Supreme Court amicus brief discussing TILA uncapped statuatory damages in autofraud cases.
Download File
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is intended to benefit the economy and consumers by promoting the informed use of credit. The deceptive sales techniques used by Koons against Mr. Nigh are recurring practices for businesses who refuse to compete openly and fairly in the marketplace. This Amicus Brief was written by Richard J. Rubin, Carolyn L. Carter, Joanne S. Faulkner, Thomas Dean Domonoske.

4/22/2004
Bankwest, Inc. v. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General of the State of Georgia, Community State Bank v. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General of the State of Georgia, First Bank of Delaware v. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General of the State of Georgia, County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware v. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General of the State of Georgia.
Download File
“The fringe banking industry exploits vulnerable consumers who must rely on state regulation. Lenders relationships with out-of-state banks are just the latest in a history of attempts to evade interests caps.” This Amicus Brief was written by Deborah Zuckerman and Michael Schuster of AARP Foundation, Gary Leshaw and Leigh Altman of Gary Leshaw and Associates, and Ashley Carraway of Atlanta Legal Aid Society.

4/12/2004
Antone Boghus v. Lloyd’s of London, International Risk Management Group, and Petersen International Underwriters.
Download File
“The imposition of unreasonable costs renders an arbitration clause unenforceable.” This Amicus Brief was written by Deborah Zuckerman and Michael Schuster of AARP Foundation, and Nancy Barron of Kenmitzer, Anderson, Barron and Ogilvie.

1/1/2004
Minnesota Consumer Fraud Amicus Brief
Download File
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc. A misrepresentation or deceptive act can cause harm to consumers as contemplated by the private Attorney General Statute, despite the presence of written disclaimers.

6/1/2003
Nike Supreme Court Amicus Brief
Download File
Nike, Inc., et al., v. Marc Kasky, Case # 02-575 in the Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. California's broad standing provision for consumer protection actions is not facially unconstitutional, and the California Court properly found that at least some of Nike's statements were "commercial speech."

5/27/2003
Heimmermann v. First Union Amicus Brief
Download File
In the matter of Case #02-1432 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Daniel Heimmermann and Emily Heimmermann v. First Union Mortgage Corp., and Beth A. Richardson, and Pamela C. Hirsch and David L. Hirsch v. BankAmerica Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Bank of America FSB, A Hawaii Corporation, BankAmerica Mortgage, A Division of BankAmerica FSB, A Hawaii Corporation.

1/1/1998
Kasky v. Nike, Inc.
Download File
NACA filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States, supporting Marc Kasky's 1998 filing alleging that petitioner Nike, Inc. made false or misleading assertions of fact concerning the working conditions in overseas facilities where Nike's products are manufactured.