Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-03240
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C., Judge Karas ordered a response to a request to consolidate and stay related cases.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and the Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C., as parties to two related federal proceedings; the requested consolidation and stay would affect how those proceedings proceed.
What happened
In Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C., the Law Offices asked for a conference to seek consolidation of two related cases and a stay until July 1, 2020. It argued that the cases involved the same parties and overlapping facts and legal issues.
The Law Offices also argued that the cases should pause until the Supreme Court decided Seila Law, LLC v. CFPB, which it said could affect the Bureau’s constitutional arguments. The Bureau opposed consolidation, according to the letter, although the Law Offices said the Bureau had acknowledged substantial overlap.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas directed the Bureau to respond by June 11, 2020 and stated that the court was inclined to consolidate and stay the case along the proposed lines. The text does not state that the court formally granted the requested consolidation or stay.
The detailed version
- Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C. · No. 7:20-cv-03240
- Kenneth Karas
- June 9, 2020
Background
The opinion text is a June 9, 2020 letter-motion submitted by the Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C. It sought a pre-motion conference to request consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and a stay of two related proceedings. The letter identified the related case as Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C. v. CFPB et al., No. 7:19-cv-11594, and the current case as Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C., No. 7:20-cv-3240.
Arguments in the Letter
The Law Offices argued that the two proceedings had the same parties, operative facts, applicable law, venue, and judge. It also pointed to what it described as conflicting deadlines in an April 6, 2020 amended scheduling order and a May 13, 2020 order to show cause. The letter stated that the Bureau opposed consolidation, while also asserting that the Bureau had acknowledged that the cases involved the same parties, substantial factual overlap, and significant overlap in legal issues.
The Law Offices separately requested a stay until July 1, 2020, or until a scheduling conference could be held. It argued that the Supreme Court’s expected decision in Seila Law, LLC v. CFPB could significantly or dispositively affect the cases, particularly issues concerning Title X’s provision allowing removal of the Bureau’s director only for cause. The letter stated that the Bureau had argued that the removal provision was unconstitutional but severable. These were arguments made in the letter; the text does not show that the court decided those constitutional issues.
Court’s Action
The court directed the Bureau to respond to the letter by June 11, 2020. Judge Kenneth M. Karas stated that the court was inclined to consolidate and stay the case along the lines proposed by the Law Offices. The text does not state that the court entered a final order granting consolidation or a stay. It also does not state a ruling on the underlying constitutional or other merits issues.
Disposition and Classification
The court’s action was a procedural order concerning case management: it required a response and indicated an inclination toward consolidation and a stay. Because the text does not state that either request was formally granted, this summary does not describe them as granted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.