Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. MoneyGram International, Inc.

Background

The defendants filed a letter motion asking the court to stay, meaning temporarily pause, the case and the court’s decision on their pending motion to dismiss. They also asked the court to decide their pending motion to transfer the case to another venue. The request followed a petition filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Office of the Solicitor General asking the Supreme Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision concerning the CFPB’s statutory funding mechanism and the Appropriations Clause.

The plaintiffs were the CFPB and the People of the State of New York, represented in the opinion by the New York Attorney General. The complaint asserted four claims brought by the CFPB alone, two claims brought jointly by the CFPB and the New York Attorney General, and one claim brought by the New York Attorney General alone. The claims involved the Remittance Rule, Regulation E, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and New York Executive Law § 63(12).

Arguments and governing standard

The defendants argued that the Supreme Court petition could affect or resolve important issues in the case, that pausing the case would avoid inefficient proceedings or a ruling inconsistent with higher-court decisions, and that any delay would likely be brief because expedited Supreme Court review had been requested.

The plaintiffs argued that the petition might not affect their claims that did not depend on the CFPB’s standing, that the Fifth Circuit’s decision was an outlier, and that delay could hinder enforcement efforts and make evidence harder to obtain. They also argued that if the court stayed the motion to dismiss, it should stay the motion to transfer as well.

The court explained that a district court has authority to control the timing of cases on its docket. It considered the interests of the plaintiffs, the defendants, the courts, nonparties, and the public. The court also noted that courts may pause cases when a higher court is close to resolving an important legal issue bearing on the case, even if the higher court’s decision may not resolve every issue.

Ruling

The court stayed its decision on the motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the CFPB’s regulations were central to nearly all of the plaintiffs’ claims and that a Supreme Court decision could resolve or affect important issues in the case. Although the court recognized the plaintiffs’ and the public’s interest in moving the case forward, it concluded that those interests did not outweigh the benefits of judicial efficiency, particularly because the Supreme Court was expected to decide relatively soon whether to grant or deny the petition.

The court also stayed its decision on the motion to transfer. It agreed that subject-matter jurisdiction issues could affect whether the court had power to decide a transfer request. The court further concluded that deciding the transfer and dismissal motions separately would not promote efficiency because the motions had been briefed together.

The court therefore ordered the Clerk of Court to stay the case in its entirety pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the petition. The parties were directed to file a joint letter informing the court when the Supreme Court issued a decision to grant or deny the petition. The court terminated the pending stay motion at docket entry 50. The court did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or the defendants’ motions to dismiss or transfer.