The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is opposing defendants' attempt to seek new information in
The CFPB last week filed a motion in a Connecticut federal district court to "strike, or in the alternative, extend" a deadline it has to respond to defendants' most recent discovery motion.
The industry has been watching the lawsuit as a way to get a read on how regulators perceive requirements for employees in a direct lending operation under the Secure and Fair Enforcement of Mortgage Licensing Act.
1st Alliance
The defendants' latest discovery motion seeks more detailed information about the extent of the CFPB's investigation and its findings.
"CFPB has only provided examples of alleged SAFE Act violations in 13 states in its discovery responses," the defendants claimed in a recent federal court filing.
Court filings indicate that 1st Alliance was active between 2004 and 2019. At its height, it had 46 state licenses and one in Washington D.C., according to those documents.
CFPB claimed in its filing the defendants' discovery motion "makes specious arguments and mischaracterizes this court's prior statements."
In asking the federal court to dismiss the defendants' motion, the bureau noted 1st Alliance and its principals filed it "nearly one full year after the Jan. 27, 2023 close of discovery" and 17 days prior to the bureau's filing deadline for its summary judgment motion.
"Defendants have challenged nearly all the Magistrate's discovery-related rulings as 'contrary to law,'" the CFPB said, calling this part of a "delay-at-all-costs litigation strategy."
"The discovery phase of this litigation is over and, just as the Court has directed, it is time to move to dispositive briefing," the bureau said.
