Cases
United States v. Billy Joe Goines d/b/a Goines Towing & Recovery (E.D.N.C.)
On March 3, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Billy Joe Goines d/b/a Goines Towing & Recovery (E.D.N.C.). The complaint alleges that the defendant violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning off, selling, or otherwise disposing of servicemembers’ motor vehicles pursuant to court judgments obtained without filing proper military affidavits. The SCRA requires a plaintiff seeking a default judgment in court to file an accurate military affidavit stating whether or not the defendant is in military service, or that the plaintiff is unable to determine the defendant’s military service status. The complaint alleges that since at least 2017, Goines disposed of motor vehicles belonging to SCRA-protected servicemembers after failing to file, or filing inaccurate, military affidavits in court proceedings against those servicemembers.
Espin v. Citibank, N.A. (E.D.N.C.)
On March 2, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Espin v. Citibank, N.A. (E.D.N.C.), a class action lawsuit brought under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) by four servicemembers on behalf of a class of servicemembers who held credit cards issued by, or had other interest-bearing obligations to, the bank. The complaint alleges that the defendant failed to comply with Section 3937 of the SCRA, which requires lenders to limit the interest rate charged to eligible servicemembers to 6% during periods of military service. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the SCRA gives servicemembers pursuing SCRA claims the right to participate in a class action case in federal court even where a defendant seeks to enforce a contract clause mandating individual arbitration.
Padao v. American Express National Bank (E.D.N.C.)
On March 2, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Padao v. American Express National Bank (E.D.N.C.), a class action lawsuit brought under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) by a servicemember on behalf of a class of servicemembers who held credit cards issued by, or had other interest-bearing obligations to, the bank. The complaint alleges that the defendant failed to comply with Section 3937 of the SCRA, which requires lenders to limit the interest rate charged to eligible servicemembers to 6% during periods of military service. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the SCRA gives servicemembers pursuing SCRA claims the right to participate in a class action case in federal court even where a defendant seeks to enforce a contract clause mandating individual arbitration.
United States v. City of El Paso, Texas, et al. (W.D. Tex.)
On February 2, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of El Paso, Texas, et al. (W.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that defendants, the City of El Paso and its agents, engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Section 3958 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing at least 176 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without the required court orders. United Road Towing, Inc. d/b/a UR Vehicle Management Solutions and Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc. are also named as defendants in the case.
United States v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. dba GM Financial (N.D. Tex.)
On September 30, 2022, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. dba GM Financial (N.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that GM Financial violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by illegally repossessing 71 servicemembers’ vehicles and by improperly denying or mishandling over 1,000 vehicle lease termination requests. The amended consent order, which the court entered on October 4, 2022, requires GM Financial to pay $3,534,171 to the affected servicemembers and a $65,480 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires GM Financial to repair the servicemembers’ credit, provide SCRA training to its employees, and follow policies and procedures that comply with the SCRA.
Press Release (9/30/22)
United States v. Integrity Asset Management LLC (W.D. Tx.)
On September 2, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States vs. Integrity Asset Management, LLC (W.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on August 19, 2022, alleged that the defendant, a company that manages approximately 55 multi-family apartment properties in and around El Paso, Texas, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by charging unlawful fees to servicemembers who terminated their residential leases early and by denying other servicemembers’ requests to terminate their leases. The consent order requires the defendant to pay a total of $107,000 in monetary relief: $45,325 to affected servicemembers and a $62,029 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires the defendant to repair the servicemembers’ credit, provide SCRA training to its employees, and develop new policies and procedures consistent with the SCRA.
Press Release (8/18/2022)
United States vs. Chesapeake Coveside Lane Apartments Property Owner, LLC, et al. (E.D. Va.)
On September 14, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States vs. Chesapeake Coveside Lane Apartments Property Owner, LLC, et al. (E.D. Va.). The complaint, which was filed on August 8, 2022, alleges that the defendants violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by obtaining unlawful court judgments against military tenants at the Hideaway at Greenbrier Luxury Apartment Homes in Chesapeake, Virginia, and the Chase Arbor Apartments in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Chesapeake Coveside Lane Apartments Property Owner, LLC and Chase Arbor Apartments Property Owner, LLC are both named as defendants in the case. The consent order requires the defendants to pay a total of $225,000 in monetary relief: $162,971 to affected servicemembers and a $62,029 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires the defendants to vacate the judgments, repair the servicemembers’ credit, provide SCRA training to their employees, and develop new policies and procedures consistent with the SCRA. The owners must also reimburse affected servicemembers for any amounts collected pursuant to an unlawful judgment.
United States v. Prince George County, Virginia
United States v. Steve's Towing, Inc. (E. D. Va.)
On April 17, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States & John Doe v. Steve’s Towing, Inc. (E.D. Va.). The complaint, which was filed on April 15, 2022, alleges that a Virginia Beach towing company violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning off vehicles belonging to at least seven servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders. Some of the vehicles were towed from a military base while their owners were deployed overseas. In addition to requiring the adoption of new policies to prevent future SCRA violations, the consent order orders the defendant to pay a total of $90,000 in monetary relief: $67,500 in damages to identified servicemembers; up to $12,500 for as-yet unidentified servicemembers; and a $10,000 civil penalty.
United States v. Bayport Credit Union (E.D. Va.)
On March 18, 2022 the court entered a consent order in United States v. BayPort Credit Union (E.D. Va.). The complaint, which was filed on March 10, 2022, alleges that a credit union failed to cap servicemembers’ interest rates for pre-service loans at 6% and repossessed servicemembers’ motor vehicles without the required court orders. The consent order requires BayPort to pay $69,443.10 to 24 servicemembers and pay a $40,000 civil penalty. The agreement also includes changes in BayPort’s SCRA interest rate benefit and repossession policies and employee training.
Press Release - (03/18/2022)
United States v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital (N.D. Tex.)
On October 1, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital (N.D. Tex.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2021, alleged that Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), by unlawfully rejecting ten (10) requests from qualified servicemembers to terminate their motor vehicle leases early. The consent order require Defendant provide for changes to procedures and training, $94,282.62 in compensation for ten servicemembers, and a $40,000 civil penalty.
United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation (C.D. Cal.)
On October 6, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed along with the proposed consent order on September 29, 2021, alleged that American Honda Finance Corporation violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by failing to refund pre-paid lease amounts - in the form of capitalized cost reduction (“CCR”) from vehicle trade-in value – that were paid in advance by servicemembers who lawfully terminated their motor vehicle leases upon receipt of qualifying military orders. The consent order requires Honda to pay $1,585,803.89 to 714 servicemembers, pay a $64,715 civil penalty to the United States, make changes to its lease termination and SCRA interest rate benefit policies, and provide employee training.