Gnau v. Ackerman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim against an assignee for violating § 1639f
• stating that, under Alabama law, claims of negligent and wanton supervision and training require “a showing that ‘(1) the employee committed a tort recognized under Alabama law; (2
• recognizing “a veritable avalanche of recent (and apparently unanimous) federal precedent has found that no cause of action for negligent or wanton servicing of a mortgage account exists under Alabama law”
• recognizing “a veritable avalanche of recent (and apparently unanimous) federal precedent has found that no cause of action for negligent or wanton servicing of a mortgage account exists under Alabama law”
• rejecting vicarious liability for assignee under TILA because the statute “does not create or allow a cause of action for damages against assignees”
• “[A] veritable avalanche of recent (and apparently unanimous) federal precedent has found that no cause of action for negligent or wanton 11 Case: 18-14013 Date Filed: 01/22/2020 Page: 12 of 12 servicing of a mortgage account exists under Alabama law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).