Cristina Mathews ’19 is writing an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court in Black Sky Capital v. Cobb, on behalf of Housing and Economic Rights Advocates,seeking to protect home equity loan borrowers from being sued (or hounded by debt collectors) after foreclosure for a “deficiency” if the home is sold for less than the amount of the mortgages.

Berkeley Law student Brady Williams and Professor Ted Mermin have submitted an Amicus Brief on behalf of leading consumer protections organizations in a key California Supreme Court unconscionability case. Joining the brief were the Center for Responsible Lending, Public Good Law Center, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and Public Citizen.

The case, De La Torre v. CashCall, is about whether the doctrine of unconscionability should apply to loans whose interest rates are not subject to a statutory interest rate cap.

Click here to read the Court’s ultimate opinion in the case. To read the amicus brief, click here or see below:

In all of three weeks, Sophia Ton’Nu drafted an amicus brief on behalf of the American Heart Association and a dozen other public health and medical organizations in the Ninth Circuit in American Beverage Association v. San Francisco, arguing that the First Amendment does not preclude governments from requiring scientifically accurate disclosures and warnings on advertisements for potentially harmful products.

California Senate Bill 298 (2017), the brainchild of Consumer Justice Clinic Director Sharon Djemal, would have reformed California’s bank levy process for low-income debtors. CAPS members were involved in drafting/advocating for the bill, as well as creating a supporting website for the bill (www.casb298.com). Although the bill did not pass during the 2017 legislative session, the bill took a necessary first step in prompting a discussion of the need for California to reform its bank levy process.

Daniel Contreras drafted an amicus brief on behalf of the Public Good Law Center in the D.C. Circuit in Soundboard Ass’n v. FTC, arguing that the use of advanced digital technology to deceive consumers into believing they are talking to a human being is a prohibited form of “robocalling,” and that the First Amendment does not protect such manufactured speech.

In just two weeks, MJ drafted, revised, and filed an amicus brief in the Northern District of California on behalf of the Public Good Law Center and several other consumer protection organizations in support of the Federal Trade Commission’s case against DIRECTV for allegedly misleading customers by hiding the increased cost of the second half of a two-year contract and the actual cost of “free” premium service.

Robin filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in Henson v. Santander, on behalf of the East Bay Community Law Center and law clinics at Notre Dame and Yale, arguing that the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act covers banks that are acting as debt buyers. She is also writing an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court, on behalf of EBCLC and a raft of other legal services providers around California, arguing that California law requires debt collectors to make their witnesses available for trial rather than having them appear only through affidavits. Both cases involve crucial tools used by legal services clinics on behalf of low-income consumers to hold abusive debt collectors accountable.