dannlaw.com

Foreclosure Defense | Ohio | Chicago | New Jersey | Oregon | New York

Cleveland Office
216-373-0539
Cincinnati Office
513-951-7124
Columbus Office
877-475-8100
NY/NJ Office
201-355-3440
California Office
201-355-3440

Class action suit against Ohio BMV over bogus lamination fees continues, plaintiffs who received postcards don’t need to do anything to remain part of the class

Class Action Lawsuit

By

If you received a postcard regarding the Madyda v. BMV case, it is because you are one of the people who paid a fee to have your driver’s licensed laminated by a deputy registrar between 2018 and 2020, even though the deputy registrars were not performing the service.

That makes you a member of the class of plaintiffs in the lawsuit DannLaw has filed against the BMV and the state of Ohio. If you would like to remain in the class and receive a portion of any funds or other compensation we recover on behalf of the plaintiffs you do not need to do anything. If you prefer to bring your own claim against the BMV, the postcard contains instructions for opting out.

Again, you do not need to do anything if you want to continue to be a member of the class. DannLaw will provide regular updates as the case proceeds.

Here is a detailed description of the case:

DannLaw files class action suit against Ohio Bureau of Motor vehicles to recover $3 million in bogus fees charged by deputy registrars

 By  (Edit)

Since July 2, 2018, the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) has allowed the state’s 200 deputy registrars to charge people obtaining or renewing driver’s licenses or state-issued I.D.s a $1.50 lamination fee even though the registrars were no longer producing—or laminating—the cards on site. As a result, an estimated two million Ohioans have been charged $3 million for a service that was not performed.

Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio, told the Columbus Dispatch the registrars should not be pocketing the fee. “Clearly, the registrars should not be charging for something they are not providing … that’s not fair. Many of us don’t think about a buck fifty, it’s not a big deal. But it is a big deal when you think about being charged extra fees for no reason. We want to spend our money on what we expected.”

Attorney Marc Dann, founder of the Cleveland-based consumer protection law firm DannLaw agrees with Ms. Turcer. And, if the messages that have been pouring into the firm’s Facebook page are any indication, so do people who paid the bogus fee. “We posted an item on our Facebook page asking anyone who has renewed their license or state I.D. since last July to contact us,” the former Ohio attorney general said. “The response was overwhelming. Those who paid the fee were outraged. They want their money back and they want the state to stop ripping people off.”

Today the legal team at DannLaw took the first step toward recovering the unwarranted fees by filing a class action suit against the BMV in the Ohio Court of Claims. The suit asks the Court to award anyone who paid the lamination fee $1.50 plus interest. The complaint may be read/downloaded here:Madyda Alexander 2019 03 19 Complaint – Lamination Fee INITIAL DRAFT (002)

“While the dollar amount on a per-person basis may be small, there’s nothing trivial about the BMV allowing the registrars to pocket $3 million for doing nothing,” Atty. Dann said. “If everyone shrugs their shoulders and says ‘it’s only a buck fifty’ does that mean it’s ok for the state to grab five dollars or ten dollars from its citizens? Where do you draw the line? At its core, this case isn’t about the $1.50, it’s about holding government officials accountable for their actions. That’s the best way to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again.”

According to Atty. Joe Romano of Bay Village, Ohio who is serving as co-counsel on the case the overcharges stem from the fact that in order to comply with federal regulations the BMV itself rather than the registrars began producing and mailing the licenses and I.D. cards last July. “Apparently, and this is something we hope to learn more about as the case progresses, neither the deputy registrars nor the staff at the BMV noticed that people were still being charged the $1.50 lamination fee even though the registrars weren’t laminating a darn thing,” he said.

By

The following is an abridged version of a story by Hayley Fowler that was published by Law 360…

Law360 (July 14, 2023, 4:11 PM EDT) — Bank of America NA has been hit with a proposed class action alleging it opened credit cards without customers’ knowledge to meet sales goals, just days after the bank agreed to a nine-figure settlement with federal regulators over alleged transgressions involving its credit card rewards and overdraft policies.
DannLaw founder Marc DannDAnnLaw filed the suit in North Carolina federal court on behalf of Ohio resident Nadine Ballard and a proposed class of consumers who said they unknowingly had credit card accounts opened in their names between 2012 and 2022, which allegedly resulted in penalties for unpaid fees and impacted their credit scores. In the suit DannLaw and Ms. Ballard said the accounts were opened by employees desperate to reach “unrealistic sales quotas” as part of a money-grabbing scheme by the Charlotte-based bank.
“BoA allowed this fraud to fester for over a decade, profiting off of the harm it directly caused to the consumers who trusted BoA,” the lawsuit states. The complaint in the case, maybe viewed and downloaded here: Bank of America credit card scam complaint.
Ballard’s complaint comes on the heels of a collective $150 million in fines levied against Bank of America on Tuesday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
About $30 million of those penalties was attributed to the bank’s alleged failure to provide credit card sign-up reward bonuses as advertised and opening unauthorized credit card accounts to meet sales targets, which have since been eliminated.
Bank of America did not admit any wrongdoing in agreeing to pay the fines, and the CFPB said only a “small percentage” of the bank’s new credit card accounts opened between 2012 and 2020 were found to be unauthorized.
Still, Ballard said Thursday that the bank’s alleged “fee generating scheme” has impacted “many thousands of members.”
“Until the CFPB took decisive action against BoA, BoA had every incentive to continue this illegal conduct because it is a fee-generating machine that produced extraordinary profits for the bank at the expense of its consumers,” she said.
According to the complaint, Ballard discovered in March that the bank had previously opened an allegedly unauthorized account in her name. Since then, Ballard said she has “spent substantial time to correct her credit report as well as to lodge complaints with the appropriate government agencies, including the CFPB.”
Ballard blamed Bank of America’s “intense sales pressure” for the allegedly unauthorized accounts, which she said often required employees to pull consumer reports to determine a customer’s eligibility.
Bank of America allegedly knew about the scheme and took steps to hide it, she said, saying the bank was fully “aware its quotas are unrealistic for employees during normal working hours.”
Oftentimes customers only found out about the accounts when Bank of America asked them to update their account information, new debit or credit cards arrived in the mail, or missing deposits showed up in the allegedly unauthorized account, Ballard said.
As a result, customers were allegedly forced to pay monthly service fees, suffered damages to their credit reports and had to pay for identity theft protection, the lawsuit states.
“As a result of opening new accounts, BoA was able to inflate the key metrics regarding new account holder information in its [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission] filings, and — equally troubling — was able to accrue associated fees from those accounts opened without consumer consent,” DannLaw claims in the suit.
Thursday’s complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Ballard is seeking class certification, treble damages, restitution, attorney fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.
“The brazen way that Bank of America encouraged and allowed fraud to be committed against perhaps millions of its customers is one of the greatest travesties in the history of American business,” Marc Dann told Law 360. “…we look forward to holding the bank and its officers and board members accountable.”
In addition to DannLaw, Ms. Ballard and the proposed class are represented by Scott C. Harris of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Israel David and Blake Hunter Yagman of Israel David LLC, James M. Evangelista of Evangelista Worley LLC, Jennifer Czeisler of JKC Law LLC, and Marc E. Dann and Brian D. Flick of Dann Law Firm.

By

Dann Law

Hello and Happy Spring. I’m reaching out today to provide our clients and friends with updates about several pending cases, new investigations and an exciting new addition to the DannLaw legal team. 

First I would like to introduce and welcome Jeff Crossman to DannLaw. Jeff, who recently joined DannLaw after serving in the Ohio House and running for Ohio Attorney General, will be litigating complex class action, mortgage servicing, and corporate/business cases. 

Picture of Jeff CrossmanJeff brings more than two decades of legal experience to Dann Law.  During his career, he has represented a variety of clients in complex matters, successfully resolving disputes for both individuals and businesses ranging from small startups to national corporations.  Jeff has served as an associate with a prominent national law firm, as in-house legal counsel for multiple national companies, and recently served two terms as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives where he gained invaluable experience in public policy, government, and changes made to the legal system. The sum of Jeff’s experience has given him a unique perspective and a deep understanding of the legal landscape, which he leverages to achieve the best outcomes for his clients.

Jeff believes that every client deserves high-quality legal representation personalized to fit the client’s needs, and he is committed to achieving the best possible outcomes for each and every one of his clients.

Education

  • B.A. University of Mount Union
  • M.A., University of Akron
  • J.D., Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, magna cum laude

Bar Admissions

  • State of Ohio
  • Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
  • Pending: Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio 
  • 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 Mortgage Servicing Litigation

Our Mortgage Servicing Litigation team, which includes Dan Solar, Michael Smith, Saher Chaudrey, Javier Merino, Brian Flick, Kim White, and Karen Ortiz, continue to bring groundbreaking cases on behalf of homeowners involved in disputes with their mortgage servicers:

  1. Delays  and mistakes made by servicers assisting homeowners who took advantage of Covid Related Mortgage Payment Forbearance provided by the CARES Act and the American Recovery Act.  As a result of these errors, many borrowers exited forbearance with higher interest rates than they should have and some are facing unnecessary and unwarranted foreclosure actions. 
  2. Homeowners put at risk because servicers mishandled tax, insurance, and other escrow payments.. 
  3. Problems that have occurred when mortgage servicing is transferred from one company to another. This problem is especially prevalent when borrowers and services are engaged in loss mitigation activities. 
  4. Accounting problems following the successful completion of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. 
  5. Violations of Ohio’s Residential Mortgage Loan Act. Dannlaw has obtained numerous consumer/borrower favorable court decisions involving servicers who failed to abide by changes in the Ohio Law that protects borrowers.

Foreclosure Defense

As foreclosure protections sunset our Foreclosure Defense team led by Whitney Kaster with support from Amanda Severt, Karen Ortiz and Roberto Rivera are litgating cases and developing thoughtful and innovative loss mitigation and legal strategies that will enable our clients to stay in their homes. If you are or may be about to enter foreclosure, please contact form or call us at 216-373-0539. We are here to help.

Class Action Lawsuits 

The members of our class action practice group, Brian Flick, Javier Merino, Andy Wolf, Jeff Crossman, Saher Chaudrey,Kim White and Liza Marigliano are pleased and proud to report that they have worked with co-counsel to obtain preliminary approval of several class action cases across the United States in the past several months.  There are active claim deadlines in the following cases.  If you believe you are a member of the class in one or some of these actions, we encourage you to visit the case settlement websites to review the terms of settlement and if appropriate files a claim: .

Nationstar

In the Class Action case against Nationstar Mortgage and payment processor ACI we successfully negotiated a $9 million settlement that is set for final approval on May 31, 2023 in the Federal District Court in North Carolina. You still have  time to submit claims if Nationstar pulled money from your bank account without permission in April of 2021. Visit this website to make a claim https://achloanpaymentlitigation.com/.

Michigan Ave. Immediate Care

Michigan Avenue Immediate Care  has agreed to a $900,000 settlement fund for people whose personal information was exposed to the dark web as the result of a data breach. If you were a patient of the of that Chicago medical practice file a claim here:  https://www.maicincident.com/

Parker Hannifin

We’ve reached a favorable $1.75 Million  settlement for present and past employees of Parker Hannifin who were impacted by a data breach. If you ever worked at Parker Hannifin please follow this link to learn more and file a claim www.phdatasettlement.com.

We are also investigating and litigating several other significant class action cases including:

Pricing Fraud by Dollar General.  DannLaw has filed cases against Dollar General in Ohio, New York and New Jersey based on allegations that prices listed for items on shelves are lower than prices charged at the register. If you live anywhere in the United States and believe you have been overcharged by Dollar General or any other retailer, please contact our office by completing and submitting our contact form or calling 216-373-0539.

Salmonella Poisoning in Jif Peanut Butter 

The FDA, along with CDC and state and local partners are investigating a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Senftenberg infections linked to certain Jif brand peanut butter products produced at the J.M. Smucker Company facility in Lexington, Kentucky. If you believe you have been impacted by the outbreak please complete and submit our contact form or call us at 216-373-0539.

Traffic Camera Violations in the City of Girard

Tickets were wrongly issued to drivers along Rt 80 in Girard Ohio

Impact Cases

Federal Government’s failure to compensate victims of  “Snap Skimming”  DannLaw recently filed a case in Ohio against the United States Department of Agriculture regarding the agency’s failure to reimburse Ohioans whose SNAP benefits have been “skimmed” by unknown third parties beginning in January of 2022. 

Skimming occurs when criminals use a device placed over a point-of-sale card reader to steal information from payment cards like SNAP EBT and cash assistance cards. That means SNAP or cash assistance benefits may have been stolen with the cardholder’s knowledge.

If you believe you have been a victim of SNAP theft, please please complete and submit our contact form or call us at 216-373-0539.

Racial Discrimination in Mortgage Lending by Wells Fargo We have assumed a  leadership role in investigating allegations that Wells denied  borrowers of color mortgage financing at a rate almost double that of white borrowers.. 

Ohio PUA Unemployment Benefits

In Bowling v. Dewine we continue to pursue $900 million in fully federally-funded COVID-19 supplemental unemployment insurance benefits the DeWine administration callously denied Ohioans who were left jobless as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic. 

Data Breach Cases

We are also bringing Class Actions for Data Breaches against the following Companies:

Last Pass/GoTo Technologies

Carrington Mortgage and Alvaria, Inc.

Snap Finance–Brian Flick has been appointed co-lead counsel

Key Bank/KeyBank Mortgage/Fulton Bank/Overby-Seawell

Samsung

Bet MGM (Where Javier Merino is taking a Lead Role)

Lakeview Loan Servicing

If you or someone you know has been impacted by these data breaches please complete and submit our contact form or call us at 216-373-0539.

By

DannLaw founder Marc DannAs most of you know, the next hearing in the supplemental unemployment benefit case is scheduled for Tuesday, January 24, 2022 before Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Holbrook. If you are interested in attending the hearing it will be conducted in Courtroom 5B in the Franklin County Courthouse which is located at 345 High Street in Columbus. The hearing may also be viewed via a live stream here: https://www.fccourts.org/480/Live-Stream

As the day approaches, I want to commend the extremely talented attorneys who have from Day One been totally engaged in the battle to force Governor DeWine to do the right thing by     reversing his decision to deny tens of thousands of Ohioans the fully federally funded unemployment benefits they deserve and desperately need. Please join me in thanking Brian Flick of DannLaw, Andrew Engel of Advocate Attorneys, LLP, and Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. and Matthew C. De Re of the Zimmerman Law Offices. Absent their hard work and dedication this fight would have been lost long ago.

I also wanted to share the consolidated class action complaint we have filed. You may view it here: Bowling Candy 2023 01 02 TS Consolidated Class Complaint. I invite everyone to read the entire document. For those who would just like to cut to the chase I have pulled out what in legal terms is called our “Prayer for Relief,” and also provided a plain English summary.

In Plain English we demand:

  • That the named plaintiffs, Candy Bowling Candy, Shawnee Huff, James Parker, Sarah Russell, Sebastian Nash, and Zachary Dunn represent all the people Governor DeWine screwed over by callously and unjustly cutting off the benefits;
  • That DeWine did not follow the law which requires him to secure all available federal unemployment benefits for the people he is supposed to represent:
  • That the Court order DeWine to retroactively provide Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) program to plaintiffs and the members of the class;
  • That the Court order the governor and the state to immediately reinstate Ohio’s participation in all federal unemployment Benefit Programs;
  • That the state pays the attorney’s fees associated with bringing and pursuing the case;
  • That the judge does whatever else he believes are necessary to right the grievous wrong that has been done to so many Ohioans.

To boil it down even more we’re saying these are the people who were hurt, they shouldn’t have been, now give them the money.

If you prefer all of it in legalese read below. If you stop here, please know that we appreciate your support and your kind words. Your energy and commitment to fighting for what’s right has fueled our campaign for justice.

Wish us luck on the 24th, and of course we will provide updates after the hearing.

Legalese version of the Prayer for Relief:

Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of the Class, pray for an Order as follows: A. Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a class action and certifying the Class defined herein;

  1. Designating Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and their undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;
  2. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class and against Defendants;
  3. Declaring that (1) pursuant to O.R.C. § 4141.43(I), Defendants must secure all possible federal unemployment benefits available to unemployed Ohioans, (2) Defendants violated their statutory duties under O.R.C. § 4141.43(I) by prematurely terminating Ohio’s participation in FPUC benefits as of the week of June 26, 2021, and (3) Defendants’ continued failure and refusal to secure all available advantages on behalf of Ohio and Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Jan 02 2:11 PM-21CV004469 23 Ohio citizens, such as the FPUC benefits, is in derogation of Defendants’ constitutional powers and violates their clear statutory duties;
  4. Mandatorily enjoining and ordering Governor DeWine and Director Damschroder, in their official capacities, ODJFS, and Defendants’ officers, employees, and agents, all persons acting in concert or participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant’s supervision, direction, or control to reinstate Ohio’s participation in FPUC, and use Ohio’s share of the Remaining Funds to retroactively provide the FPUC benefits to Plaintiffs and Class members;
  5. Ordering—pursuant to O.R.C. § 2731.01, et seq.—Governor DeWine and Director Damschroder, on behalf of the State of Ohio, to take all actions necessary to immediately reinstate Ohio’s participation in all federal unemployment Benefit Programs available from the United States Department of Labor, including restoring FPUC benefits to the State of Ohio, as is required by O.R.C. § 4141.43(I), or, in the alternative, promptly pay FPUC benefits due to Plaintiffs and Class members for the period beginning on June 26, 2021 through September 6, 2021, as is required by O.R.C. § 4141.28(I);
  6. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class attorneys’ fees and costs, including interest thereon, as allowed or required by law;
  7. Granting all such further and other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

By

DannLaw founder Marc DannWhile the $3.7 billion settlement between Wells Fargo and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is welcome news, it doesn’t resolve all the issues surrounding the bank’s bad behavior–a point made by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra who noted that Wells’ rinse-repeat cycle of violating the law has harmed millions of American families.” He also said the company is a serial offender that puts one third of American households at risk of harm and that finding permanent resolution to this bank’s pattern of unlawful behavior is a top priority.
As most of you know, holding Wells accountable is also a top priority for DannLaw. We successfully represented clients in a class action suit related to the same issues outlined in the CFPB order and we are currently pursuing cases in California and New Jersey.
In addition, we continue to recieve calls and emails from homeowners who are involved in home mortgage disputes with Wells. If Wells is your lender or servicer and you believe you are being abused by the bank please contact DannLaw today by calling Lisa at 216-250-4012, emailing intake@dannlaw.com, or visiting https://dannlaw.com/contact/ to schedule a no-cost consultation that will enable us to determine if you are entitled to financial compensation.
Under the terms of the agreement with the CFPB Wells will provide $2 billion in compensation to consumers for engaging in the following activities:
• Unlawfully repossessing vehicles and bungling borrower accounts: Wells Fargo had systematic failures in its servicing of automobile loans that resulted in $1.3 billion in harm across more than 11 million accounts.
• Improperly denying mortgage modifications: During at least a seven-year period, the bank improperly denied thousands of mortgage loan modifications, which in some cases led to Wells Fargo customers losing their homes to wrongful foreclosures.
• Illegally charging surprise overdraft fees: For years, Wells Fargo unfairly charged surprise overdraft fees – fees charged even though consumers had enough money in their account to cover the transaction at the time the bank authorized it.
• Unlawfully freezing consumer accounts and mispresenting fee waivers: Customers affected by these account freezes were unable to access any of their money in accounts at the bank for an average of at least two weeks.
The terms of the agreement require Wells to contact its victims. Eligible consumers don’t have to take any action.
We wish we could say we believe Wells will now clean up its act. But we don’t. We know the bank is taking advantage of homeowner and consumers every day. If you are one of them, please contact DannLaw today wo we can protect your rights, your family and fight for the compensation you deserve.

By

Wells FargoClaiming that Wells Fargo has engaged in a “…pervasive pattern and practice of placing Black Americans at a disadvantage in comparison to White Americans with respect to their applications for mortgage loans,” attorneys from DannLaw and the Zimmerman Law Offices filed a class action lawsuit against the giant bank in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Tuesday, April 6, 2022. The pleading in the case may be viewed here: Ifemoa Ebo v Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo’s disturbing discriminatory behavior was documented in an extensive story published by Bloomberg in March. According to the report only 47% of Black homeowners who completed a refinance application with Wells Fargo in 2020 were approved, compared with 72% of White homeowners. By comparison other lenders had much smaller disparities in approval rates ranging from 7% to 12%. Bloomberg also noted that “Wells Fargo approved a greater share of applications from low-income White homeowners than all but the highest-income Black applicants, who had an approval rate about the same as White borrowers in the lowest-income bracket.”

Wells also discriminated against Blacks who applied for new mortgage loans. A review of publicly available data collected by the CFPB reveals that the bank approved applications submitted by Blacks at a rate 21% lower than those submitted by Whites. The disparity in approval rates at other lenders, including Chase, Quicken, United Wholesale Mortgage was approximately 10%.

Ms. Ebo’s case puts a face to Bloomberg’s reporting. In late 2021 she began searching for and found a new home in Brooklyn’s East Flatbush neighborhood. After signing a purchase agreement for $900,000 she submitted a mortgage loan application to Wells. At the time her credit score was approximately 800, her annual salary was $178,000, and she had no significant debt.

On November 1, 2021, Wells preapproved her for a loan of $883,698. The preapproval was set to expire on February 24, 2022. Ms. Ebo then immediately began working with the bank to secure final approval of the loan. She submitted all documentation requested by Wells, including W-2 forms, paystubs, and bank account statements in a timely fashion. On December 29, 2021, she received a “Commitment Letter” notifying her the application had been approved and advising her that she only needed to submit some additional documentation “in order to complete the final underwriting and funding of” the loan.

Things immediately went off the rails. In January and February Wells again asked for additional information much of which she had already submitted. She was also asked to provide items that were, according to the lawsuit, unnecessary, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. For example, she was asked to explain why she made a monthly credit card payment of $290 to her own account and for a bank statement for a bank account that did not exist.

As Wells’ unnecessary and duplicative information requests continued into late February and March Ms. Ebo told the bank she was concerned her preapproval would expire before she received her loan even she was highly qualified and had supplied all documentation they had requested.

Her concern was justified. On March 22, 2022, the seller of the property cancelled the purchase contract with Ms. Ebo because Wells had not approved her financing and it was unclear if they ever would. She informed Wells of the seller’s decision that same day and accordingly, did not and never will receive the loan.

This is not the first time the lender has been accused of engaging discriminatory behavior. In 2012, the bank entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Justice Department to resolve claims it had unfairly steered Black and Hispanic borrowers into subprime mortgages and charged higher fees and interest rates than they did whites. At the time Wells paid $184 million to thousands of borrowers and agreed to adopt new compliance policies.

“Wells’ treatment of Ms. Ebo is unconscionable, illegal, but not surprising in light of the company’s history, Bloomberg’s reporting and the conversations we’ve had with others who were subjected to the bank’s outrageous practices,” DannLaw’s Javier Merino said. “Clearly, Wells has not been deterred by the laws that prohibit discrimination. Perhaps being held accountable in court will motivate them to change their ways and treat all applicants, regardless of race, equally and fairly in the future.”

The lawsuit seeks actual damages, statutory, and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. For more information please contact Marc Dann at 330-651-3131.