Skip to main content

Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Home

Resources

Public Communications and Guidance

Case Examples for Legal Practitioners

Note that the following is taken from: http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civilenforcement-section-cases-1#sm

Landlord/Tenant (Pattern or Practice)

United States v. PRG Real Estate Management (E.D. Va.)

United States v. United Cmtys., LLC (D.N.J.)

United States v. Twin Creek Apartments, LLC (D. Neb).

Vehicle Lease Terminations

United States v. BMW Fin. Servs., N.A.

Vehicle Repossessions

United States v. California Auto Finance (C.D. Cal.)

United States v. Westlake Services, LLC (C.D. Cal.)

United States v. CitiFinancial Credit Co. (N.D. Tex.)

United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services (C.D. Cal.)

United States v. HSBC Finance Corp. (N.D. Ill.)

United States v. COPOCO Community Credit Union (E.D. Mich.)

United States v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (N.D. Tex.)

Evictions

United States v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC (S.D. Cal.)

Storage and Auctions

United States v. City and County of Honolulu (D. Haw.)

United States v. Horoy, Inc. d/b/a Across Town Movers (S.D. Cal.)

Mortgage Foreclosures

United States v. Northwest Tr. Servs., Inc. (W.D. Wash.)

United States v. Bank of America Corp., Citibank, NA, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ally Financial, Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. (D.D.C.)
(Please refer to Exhibit H for the SCRA portion of this settlement)

Financial (Student Loans)

United States v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (D. Del.)

Landlord/Tenant (Non-Pattern or Practice)

United States v. Belshaw (C.D. Cal.)

United States v. Occoquan Forest Drive, LLC (E.D. Va.)

United States v. Crowe (M.D. Ala.)

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.)

Towing

Andre Gordon v. Pete's Auto Service of Denbigh, Inc. (4th Cir.)

United States v. State of Arizona (D. Ariz.)

On February 15, 2018, the court entered a complaint, filed simultaneously with the agreement on February 14. The complaint alleges that the state violated UOCAVA because it was not able to transmit final absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters at least 45 days in advance of the February 27, 2018, special primary election in Congressional District 8. Among other things, the agreement provided additional time for receipt of UOCAVA ballots to ensure that eligible military and overseas voters will have sufficient time to vote in the special primary election. It also provided additional steps, if needed, to protect voters for the April 24, 2018, special general election. The agreement also required Defendants to take the actions necessary to ensure UOCAVA compliance in future special federal elections, and in 2018, Arizona adopted legislation to enlarge the special election timeline to allow election officials to timely transmit UOCAVA ballots to military and overseas voters.

United States v. West Virginia

On December 22, 2014, the court in United States v. State of West Virginia (S.D. W.Va.), a case brought to enforce the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act ("UOCAVA"), issued its decision and entered judgment for the United States. The court ordered West Virginia to count the votes for Federal office contained on certain UOCAVA ballots at issue in the case and include them in the final vote totals for the November 4, 2014 Federal general election. The case remedied violations of UOCAVA that arose after the State had transmitted ballots to military and overseas voters by September 20, the 45th day before the Federal general election as required by UOCAVA. On October 1, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ordered that a replacement candidate in a State Delegate District be added to the ballot and that corrected ballots be transmitted to all absentee voters in that district. West Virginia applied to the Secretary of Defense for a waiver of UOCAVA's requirement that ballots be transmitted to UOCAVA voters 45 days in advance of the Federal general election, which was denied on October 20, 2014. On October 31, the Department filed a complaint alleging that West Virginia had violated UOCAVA by failing to ensure that final absentee ballots were transmitted to UOCAVA voters at least 45 days in advance of the November 4, 2014 Federal general election. A consent decree was entered by the court on November 3, 2014, which among other things, extended the deadline to November 17, 2014, for receipt of corrected UOCAVA ballots if the ballots were executed on or before November 4, 2014 and returned by postal or express mail. The Department further sought an injunction requiring West Virginia to count the votes for Federal office on each of the original UOCAVA ballots returned by express or postal mail by November 17, 2014, if that ballot was the only ballot returned by the voter. That injunction was granted on December 22, 2014.

United States vs. Prince Georges County

Lindsay Hunger v. Walmart

Federal Partners

U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs

U.S. Department of Labor

Additional Legal Resources

Updated January 31, 2025