Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Legal Cases against the Board (current as of January 3, 2016)
[Board information last updated on November 4, 2015.]
(Case dockets can be accessed through www.pacer.gov.)
|Case name||Docket number||Issue of Case (and case history)|
|White Arnold & Dowd, P.C., v. Board of Governors||No 15-CV-00789 (N.D. Ala., filed May 12, 2015)||Freedom of Information Act case.
On October 30, 2015, the district court dismissed the case on the parties’ stipulation.
|Love v. Board of Governors||No. 16-CV-1077 (D. Kan., filed March 13, 2015)||Claim involving the Board’s alleged failure to comply with its mandate under the Federal Reserve Act. On June 11, 2015, the district court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss.|
|Ramey v. Board of Governors||No. 14-CV-220 (D.D.C., filed December 22, 2014)||Freedom of Information Act case.|
|The Loan Syndications and Trading Association v. Board of Governors||No. 14-1240 (D.C. Cir., petition for review filed November 10, 2014)||Petition for review of credit risk retention rules issued under Section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.|
|Richardson v. Board of Governors||No. 14-CV-01673 (D.D.C., filed October 8, 2014)||Employment discrimination claim.|
|Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., v. Board of Governors||No. 14-CV-00853 (D.D.C., filed June 11, 2014)||Administrative Procedure Act challenge to actions of the Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that allegedly disadvantage payday lenders.|
|NACS et al. v. Board of Governors||No. 13-5720 (D.C. Circuit, notice of appeal filed August 21, 2013)||Appeal from district court ruling invalidating Board regulations issued pursuant to section 1075 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to debit card interchange fees. On March 21, 2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the action to the district court. On August 18, 2014, the plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court denied NACS’s petition for certiorari (No. 14-200). On October 2, 2015, the district court entered judgment for the Board.|
|WMI Liquidating Trust v. Board of Governors||No. 13-CV-01706 (W.D. Washington, filed September 20, 2013)||Action for a declaratory judgment regarding golden parachute payments. On July 3, 2014, the action was transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Adv. Pro. No. 14-50435-MFW (Bankr. D. Del.)), and on March 19, 2015, the district court withdrew the reference and took jurisdiction of the matter (No. 14-CV-01097).|
|Ferrer v. Bernanke||No. 13-CV-01145 (S.D. Fla, filed July 30, 2013)||Claim on behalf of putative class of mortgagors that the Board’s Independent Foreclosure Review and related enforcement actions failed to provide sufficient benefits to borrowers. On October 28, 2014, the district court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss the action. On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal (Eleventh Circuit, No. 14-15325).|
|Ball v. Board of Governors||No. 13-CV-00603 (D.D.C., filed April 30, 2013)||Freedom of Information Act case. On March 31, 2015, the district court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment.|
|Crisman v. Board of Governors||No. 12-CV-1871 (D.D.C., filed November 19, 2012)||Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act case.|
|Wise v. Federal Reserve Board||No. 12-CV-1636 (D.D.C., filed October 2, 2012)||Federal Tort Claims Act case.|
|State National Bank of Big Spring v. Bernanke||No. 13-5247 (D.C. Cir. Notice of appeal filed August 2, 2013)||Appeal from district court’s dismissal of challenge to the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council. On July 24, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and remanded in part to the district court to consider issues related to the CFPB.|
|Artis v. Greenspan||No. 01-CV-0400(ESG) (D.D.C., complaint filed February 22, 2001)||Employment discrimination action. On September 29, 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On January 14, 2015, the D.C. Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition to appeal that ruling (No. 14-8003). On June 22, 2015, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice.
No. 15-5260 (D.C. Cir., notice of appeal filed September 19, 2015). Appeal of dismissal of plaintiffs’ Equal Employment Opportunity claims.
[Author’s note: The Artis case has some related blog posts.]