Home > KMB News > In the United States District Court for the district of Maryland, Northern Division

In the United States District Court for the district of Maryland, Northern Division

March 02, 2008

KMB's David J. Marshall and Gary Peller, along with the Sturdevant Law Firm, persuaded a Federal Court in Baltimore to reconsider and vacate its earlier ruling that would have forced tens of thousands consumers to arbitrate their claims against BlueHippo Funding, LLC, despite the fact that they never signed arbitration agreements with the company. The court's new ruling allows these consumers to proceed in court against a computer sales company that has taken hundreds of dollars each from over 100,000 consumers while providing nothing of value in return.

 

Download as PDF [9kb]

See also:

Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Memorandum of points and authorities in support of Plaintiffs' opposition to designation as interim counsel, Plantiffs' motion for reconsideration, and other relief requested in the accompanying motions.

Download as PDF [110kb]

Memorandum Opinion
Joan Hill-Rodriguez, Vincent Humphries, Moses Sabb, Pedro Santiuste, Carlton Turner, and Serrenia White, individually and as representatives of similarly situated consumers, sued BlueHippo Funding LLC and Joseph K. Resin, owner of BlueHippo, (Defendants collectively, "BlueHippo") for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MD CPA"), and the Maryland Retail Installment Sales Act ("RISA").

Download as PDF [29kb]

William D. Quarles, Jr.,
United States District Judge
March 2, 2007

ORDER

For the reasons discussed in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 1st day of March, 2007, ORDERED that:

1. The motion for reconsideration filed by Joan Hill-Rodriguez, et al., (Paper No. 53) BE, and HEREBY IS, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
   1. The Defendants' motion to compel (Paper No. 21) BE, and HEREBY IS, GRANTED;
      1. The Plaintiffs who signed the subsequently mailed additional terms and conditions shall proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the Contract;
      2. The Plaintiffs who did not sign the subsequently mailed additional terms and conditions shall not be compelled to proceed to arbitration;
   2. The Plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal (Paper No. 22) BE, and HEREBY IS, GRANTED in part and DENIED Case 1:06-cv-00750-WDQ Document 71 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 2 in part;
      1. The Plaintiffs who signed the subsequently mailed additional terms and conditions are not dismissed;
      2. The Plaintiffs who did not sign the subsequently mailed additional terms and conditions are dismissed;
2. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall not be designated Interim Class Counsel at this time;
3. The Defendants' motion to strike and to file a sur-reply (Paper No. 63) BE, and HEREBY IS, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
4. The Plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of class allegations (Paper No. 62) BE, and HEREBY IS, STRICKEN;
5. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file new evidence (Paper No. 66) BE, and HEREBY IS, DENIED;
6. The case BE, and HEREBY IS, STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending resolution of the compelled arbitration; and
7. The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties.