In a decision that will likely have ramifications for lenders and borrowers in the state, the Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a decision clarifying that lenders cannot rely on a “usury savings clause” to circumvent Michigan’s usury statute. But it also held that a lender’s effort to enforce a usurious loan, by itself, is not enough to trigger criminal liability.Continue Reading Michigan Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce “Usury Savings Clause”
Dillon Grimm is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office, where his practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and class actions.
Dillon has experience in matters involving a range of issues, including consumer protection, breach of contract, and fraud, among others. He has represented clients in the financial services, technology, and sports industries. He also maintains a robust pro bono practice focusing on criminal justice.
Dillon was a judicial law clerk for the Hon. Rebecca Beach Smith, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Hon. Jane R. Roth, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, before rejoining the firm in 2021.
A group of small businesses recently sued Bank of America in the Central District of California, alleging that it misled them about the terms of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. This marks yet another putative class action accusing lenders of misconduct in connection with the PPP.Continue Reading Lawsuit Accuses Bank of America of Misleading Companies About PPP Loans
The First Circuit recently revived consumer deception claims challenging the safety and testing of a car booster seat manufactured by Evenflo, in a case that potentially makes it easier for class-action plaintiffs to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements in the First Circuit when they only allege an economic injury. Continue Reading First Circuit Holds Alleged Overpayment Enough for Article III Standing
After prevailing in a class action trial regarding allegedly false advertising, plaintiffs sought $91 million in statutory damages under New York’s General Business Law (GBL), plus $49 million in prejudgment interest. In an opinion that will likely serve as an important precedent for future GBL cases – and could influence how aggressively plaintiffs pursue them – a court in the Northern District of California rejected plaintiffs’ request, and instead awarded $8.3 million in statutory damages, plus interest. Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 2022 WL 3348573 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2022). The plaintiffs’ requested award, the court held, was “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable.”Continue Reading Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Bid For $140 Million In Statutory Damages Under New York False Advertising Laws
Manufacturers of over-the-counter (OTC) medications often move to dismiss consumer class actions based on federal preemption. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) contains an express preemption clause that forbids states from enforcing laws relating to OTC drugs that are “different from or in addition to, or that [are] otherwise not identical with, a requirement under” the FDCA. 21 U.S.C. § 379r(a). (Section 379r also contains a savings clause that exempts product liability actions from its preemptive scope. See id. § 379r(e).) Similar preemption provisions exist for food and cosmetics. Id. §§ 343-1(a), 379s(a). Although most courts have interpreted the FDCA’s express preemption provisions broadly, a minority have limited their application. As discussed below, the minority view involves distinguishable circumstances and is inconsistent with the FDCA’s statutory text.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Express Federal Preemption for OTC Medications Subject to Monographs
A rare class action trial that resulted in a jury verdict against a defendant may set a precedent for the amount of statutory damages that can be recovered under New York’s General Business Law (GBL) when a class action proceeds to trial. After a jury found that Joint Juice deceptively labeled its beverages and awarded actual damages to the class, the plaintiffs moved for $140 million in statutory damages.Continue Reading Plaintiffs Seek $140 Million In Statutory Damages After Trial Win
A recent lawsuit seeks to hold a fintech company liable for failing to adequately service loans made as part of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), marking what may be the first putative class action lawsuit challenging the manner in which PPP lenders process loan forgiveness applications.Continue Reading Lawsuit Takes Aim At Fintech’s Handling Of PPP Loan Forgiveness Applications