Alston v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that because Article III injury can be predicated on the violation of statutory rights, “[a] plaintiff need not demonstrate that he or she suffered actual monetary damages”
• noting that the words “any portion, split or percentage thereof” in § 8(b) indicated that Congress knew how to “differentiate between all charges and a portion of those charges”
• finding that the filed rate doctrine did not bar plaintiffs RESPA claims
• finding that “[t]he filed-rate doctrine bars suit from” plaintiffs who “think that the price they paid . . . was unfair,” but not claims “alleg[ing] a violation of fair business practices through the use of illegal kickback payments” (internal citation omitted)
• explaining how certain, captive reinsurance schemes, like the one alleged here, may violate RESPA
• outlining four reasons why the doctrine did not apply to RESPA claims, such as “the purpose of RESPA” and the fact that “the measure of [statutory treble] damages is three times the price of [private mortgage insurance] . . . so there is no need to parse or second guess rates”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).