Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C.

Background

The Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C. asked for a stay pending appeal. A stay would pause enforcement of the court's August 19, 2020 final order, which had granted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's petition to enforce a civil investigative demand. A civil investigative demand is an administrative agency demand for information or documents.

The law firm said it intended to appeal and argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 and the court's authority to preserve the existing situation allowed the court to pause enforcement. The letter discussed four stay factors: possible irreparable harm to the firm, possible harm to the Bureau, the firm's likelihood of success on appeal, and the public interest.

The Parties' Positions

The firm argued that immediate compliance would require substantial human and financial resources and could cause business failure. It stated that responding to an earlier civil investigative demand had cost $75,000 in compliance and legal fees, led it to lay off more than half its staff, and substantially hindered its business. It also argued that the Bureau's investigation had already been delayed and that a further delay would not materially harm the Bureau.

The firm identified challenges involving the Bureau's funding mechanism and Director Kraninger's later ratification of agency action. These were presented as arguments the firm intended to raise on appeal; the court did not decide those challenges in this order.

Action Taken

The court ordered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to respond to the letter-motion by September 15, 2020. The text provided does not show a ruling granting or denying the requested stay. Judge Kenneth M. Karas therefore issued a response deadline rather than a decision on the stay request.