Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. MoneyGram International, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-03256
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. MoneyGram, Judge Failla lifted the stay and ordered new briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss and transfer after legal developments.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the State of New York, MoneyGram International, Inc., and MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc.; the order also sets briefing requirements for their attorneys.
What happened
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the People of the State of New York sued MoneyGram International, Inc. and MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. The parties updated the court about a recent Supreme Court decision affecting the legal issues in the case.
The court said that developments in the law, including the Supreme Court’s decision and a Second Circuit decision, made revised briefing appropriate. The order did not decide whether the defendants’ arguments were correct.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the defendants to file revised motions to dismiss and transfer, followed by opposition and reply briefs, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion and lift the stay in the case.
The detailed version
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. MoneyGram International, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03256
- Katherine Failla
- May 21, 2024
Background
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the State of New York are plaintiffs. The defendants are MoneyGram International, Inc. and MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. The parties submitted a joint status update concerning the Supreme Court’s May 16, 2024 decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited. The court also identified a relevant Second Circuit decision, CFPB v. Law Offices of Crystai Moroney, P.C.
Court’s action
The court concluded that the passage of time and developments in the law since the parties completed their earlier briefing made revised briefing most effective at this stage. The court directed the defendants to submit a revised motion to dismiss and motion to transfer by June 20, 2024. The defendants’ brief could not exceed 35 pages. The plaintiffs’ opposition was due July 22, 2024, with the same page limit, and any reply was due July 26, 2024, with an 18-page limit. The new briefs would replace the previously filed briefs.
The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and lift the stay in the case. Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not rule on the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute or decide the motions to dismiss or transfer in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.