I have been corresponding by email over the past few days with Kevin Rooney, who is an associate (attorney) with the Pinnacle Law Group LLP. Earlier today we had the opportunity to have a conversation (which included one of the firm’s partners, Eric Farber). Kevin informed me that his firm has been working in cooperation with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and together they are involved with another class action lawsuit against Chase. (I visited the Lieff site, and as class action attorneys, you may wish to know, dear reader, that this is a group of attorneys who can pack a wallop against an evil foe like Chase.)
Kevin was kind enough to send me a copy of the actual complaint, which you can see here on the ChangeInTerms.com site. Looks like another good day for those of us who do not appreciate Chase’s actions!
In reviewing the document, I was most gratified to see passages addressing “bad faith.” I am not an attorney, but I have written other posts about the concept of “good faith” versus “bad faith.” Quoting from the document:
“a covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied into every contract“
It would be impossible to write any contract of any kind that had meaning, without such an underpinning. If I say I’m going to do something (like offer a promotional rate) knowing all along that I planned from the beginning to “rate-jack” customers (or in the instance of Chase, engage in some other mean-spirited ploy such as it has done by its use of a coercive minimum payment increase, forcing people to switch with no “opt out”), then this would be an example of “bad faith.”
If I was a lawyer (but, my wife says law school, or any more school period, is grounds for divorce; unless, I did something like win the lotto — then I can “do anything I want”), I could say “I told you so.” However, please know that I am very satisfied with my role in this matter, which is to simply be who I am: a “regular guy” who happens to be a college professor (in a really fulfilling area: teaching students who have a desire to learn about entrepreneurship — they are our best real hope for America’s future), and someone who knows right from wrong. “Good faith” is right; “bad faith” is wrong, and Chase deserves a boat-load of class members who will prevail as plaintiffs.
If I were to guess, I would predict that all of these firms that are filing class action lawsuits, and those of us who are committed to mounting a resistance in our own individual ways, working together, are going to teach Chase a lesson. (In my present line of work, the idea of teaching lessons — preferably ones that are more positive in nature – appeals to me).
Like I said when I launched this site, in the form of a notice of change in terms of my own, directed to all abusive credit card companies:
NOW WE’RE COMING AFTER YOU
Loading ...
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Thats great news..
The only questions are:
Why does this suit only indicate class action involving California residents and not the whole United States?
Why do they not ask for individual participants, or are they asked for when the suit is won?
Great job!
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Hi Sid,
Thanks for your comment. I’m not an attorney, and I am not able to answer your questions with any degree of authority. However, I do know that certain venues (i.e., states) may be more receptive than others to a lawsuit against Chase. For example, South Dakota and Delaware wanted credit card companies to locate in their states, so they created very “friendly” laws for credit card companies.
Also, recent actions in California have exposed the fact that arbitration is essentially like playing a game on a “fixed table” at a gambling joint. California is one of the few states to require that the results from arbitration be reported. Surprise, the consumer almost NEVER wins! I know that’s not a complete answer, but the attorneys that I have mentioned in my recent posts about class action lawsuits are receptive to communications and the fact that they are on this site is a result of discussions that I have personally had with their respective firms.
If you do call one or more of them, tell them “I sent you,” and also thank them. It takes years and a ton of resources to pursue a monster like Chase, and they are taking a risk that a significant investment on their part will result in a “win.” That’s not something that they pitched me on so that I would repeat it here, I already knew that this is the way it is, so I am trying to point it out: be thankful; be supportive; cheer them on. We can’t do this alone, we have to band together and take Chase down as part of a team effort. Best wishes.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I wrote my story and opinion on the issue to Kevin Rooney a few weeks ago. I believe he was still looking for lead plaintiffs in California at the time. Glad to see he pulled everything together.
Sid, the complaint says the class definition may be revised, and I’m sure it probably will to cover the whole United States at the appropriate time. This lawsuit is just taking a conservative approach in the beginning and from a different angle than the past lawsuit. In the end, once the judges have ruled on which complaints have standing and merit, the prevailing attorneys will probably consolidate their complaints into a single action.
on Feb 7th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Hi Chris,
Your observations about consolidation (later) and gaining a foothold are consistent with the way I (as a layperson) understand the process as well. Thanks for your comment.
on Feb 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I too have been victimized by Chase Bank. Standard story at a rate of 3.99%. 15,000.00 outstanding balance. I have been in contact with Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein regarding the class action. I have a letter from Chase if it will help that states “Accordingly, we have operated your account in compliance with all applicable laws and we regret that we are not able to honor your request to keep the original terms.” In my limited understanding of law it seems to me that the term “ORIGINAL TERMS” means the beginning- origin- from the start. What more can be said.
Ronald Gray
on Feb 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Dear Ronald,
The fact that there are two class action lawsuits that have already been filed, with more likely to come, means that Chase’s response is not necessarily the “end of the story.” In other words, I am of the opinion that these firms would not be filing if they thought that Chase’s position was correct, and defensible. There’s plenty more to be said, and we’re saying it here! The word is also spreading to more and more media outlets. This is going to be a consumer revolt story by the time it’s all said and done. These firms that have filed suits believe that Chase violated the terms of its promotional offer, and it can hide behind any arguments that it may wish, but I do not not think that Chase will prevail as a defendant. Best wishes.
on Feb 7th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Good for you. Under many circumstances, I am not in favor of class action lawsuits. But in this case, it is important that you fight these guys.
Chase has been completely unethical in these matters. The loan shark executives at Chase should be put in prison for this massive bait and switch. But at least the lawsuit can ding their income a little.
I would like to see congress accelerate the new credit card rules to be effective immediately. In fact, they should make it retroactive. Especially in light of the bad behavior of companies like Chase in the past couple months. Customers who acted in good faith should not be punished by unreasonable contract changes at any time, but especially this time.
Best of luck!
on Feb 7th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Bad faith my butt!
Scalliwags they is!
Common crooks which own our lawmakers.
” Birds of a feather” my granny would have said. After Chase is done with us the lawmakers will give them a bailout.
Want a cherry on it?
Prolly why she took her egg money outta the mattress and buried it in that coffee can in the back yard.
Too bad it was one of those newfangled plastic jobs or I’ld find it with my trusty metal detector and pay the bastards off.
on Feb 7th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Got a survey from Chase today. Seems they think I might want to compliment them on the bang up job they did screwing me.
That extra 4% APR buys a lot of superfluous correspondence it would seem.
At least it was postage paid. I filled the envelope with cat crap because I didn’t know where to get that white powder that disgruntled folks normally inclose.
I’m sure I’ll be overwhelmed by promotional offers in the coming weeks.
on Feb 7th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I got my February 2009 statement on the gray account. Account still not closed, but also no $10 fee or higher minimum. Chase has not yet answered my second notice that they recieved on Jan. 20th asking them to confirm I am opted-out (to my first notice which they received on Dec. 30 2008, they had replied “we please call us to discuss your option” Like hell! I’m not talking to you anymore!)
Ronald—I’d send a copy of that letter you got from Chase to all three class action lawyers. The varying types of responses Chase is issuing, including an outright denial of your attempt at an opt-out request, would be very helpful for them to know, I think.
on Feb 8th, 2009 at 5:59 am
They never followed through on the threat with me either. I paid them off anyway.
Paid over 3K in closing costs on a refi 1st mortgage to do it. I wonder if Dr Ron would provide me the text of that letter he used to get his $110 back…
I’ld like to see just how stupid they are.
on Feb 8th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Thanks for your comment Terry,
I have visited your blog and added a comment under your post about Chase. Best wishes.
on Feb 15th, 2009 at 9:10 am
[...] priori, I have written more than one post on “good” faith” versus “bad faith” — without being a lawyer I still knew that this was an underpinning of the legal [...]