All Am. Check Cashing, Inc. v. Corley
Decision Date | 22 March 2016 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16CV55TSL–RHW |
Citation | 191 F.Supp.3d 646 |
Parties | ALL AMERICAN CHECK CASHING, INC., A Mississippi Corporation, and Mid–State Finance, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation, Plaintiffs v. Charlotte CORLEY, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance, and Taft Webb, an individual in his personal capacity, Kris Booker, an Individual in his personal capacity, and Katherine Christian, an individual in her personal capacity, and various John Does and Jane Does, Defendants |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Robin H. Rasmussen, Peter D. Baskind–PHV, Dinkelspiel, Rasmussen & Mink, PLLC, Memphis, TN, Bentley E. Conner, Bentley E. Conner, Attorney, Canton, MS, Dale Danks, Jr., Danks, Miller & Cory, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiffs.
Justin L. Matheny, Douglas T. Miracle, Mississippi Attorney General's Office, Jackson, MS, for Defendants.
On January 29, 2016, plaintiff All American Check Cashing (All American) filed a complaint in this cause seeking money damages and injunctive relief prohibiting the Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance (DBCF or the Department) from revoking its licenses to do business in the state and from seizing assets of All American, which it reported had been threatened and it believed was imminent. Upon filing its complaint, All American contemporaneously moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, contending that in the absence of injunctive relief, it faced imminent closure by the Department. At the court's direction, defendant Charlotte Corley, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the DBCF,1 filed an expedited response to the motion. Therein, she argued that the court should abstain from considering plaintiff's request for injunctive relief based on the doctrine of Younger abstention and further contended, in the alternative, that All American had failed to establish any of the requirements for obtaining injunctive relief. After receiving additional briefing from the parties on the abstention issue, the court scheduled a hearing for February 12, 2016. At the hearing, which was directed primarily to the issue of Younger abstention, All American asserted arguments for rejecting Younger abstention that had not been previously raised. Thus, following the hearing, the court requested and/or permitted additional briefing by the parties addressing these matters. Upon now having considered the parties' submissions and arguments, the court concludes that it must abstain from exercising its jurisdiction over All American's claim for injunctive relief.
All American is in the business of check cashing, short-term lending, and title loans, and has more than forty locations in the state of Mississippi. The Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance is the state agency responsible for licensing and supervision of these types of financial service businesses in the state. See Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–503(e) ( ); Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–505 ( ); Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–403(c) ( ); Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–419 ( ). The Department is authorized by statute to conduct examinations of businesses under its jurisdiction to ensure they are operating in compliance with applicable laws. See Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–5232 and Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–515(2)3 (Check Cashers Act); Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–4354 and Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–4475 (Title Pledge Act). Pursuant to this authority, agents of the Department appeared at six All American locations and its administrative office in Madison, Mississippi, on the morning of June 16, 2014, to gather information as part of an examination/investigation. Thereafter, on June 19, 2014, the Department issued to All American a cease and desist letter instructing it to cease a program through which All American was alleged to have illegally extended short-term loans by accepting only a fee from the customer, in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–519(4) & (5). All American contends it complied with this directive, and that upon a follow-up examination in December 2014, examiners noted the "apparent policy changes" and that no instances of fee-only transactions were found.
Thereafter, on May 12, 2015, the Department issued to All American a 30–page Report of Examination (Report) based on its 2014 investigation in which it reported, among other things, that based on debit card records, it had identified 1,515 illegal fee-only transactions, that would support a penalty of $757,700 ($500 per transaction), see Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–527(4) ( ); based on statements from customers, it had identified another 1,789 transactions that it considered were illegal fee-only transactions,6 which would support a penalty of $894,500 ($500 per transaction) together with an additional $894,500 for the attendant falsification of records to prevent discovery of the transactions, see Miss. Code Ann. § 75–67–425, –527; and that All American employees at a number of locations had refused the Department's examiners access to at least 7,401 business records, with each refusal constituting a violation of Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75–67–515, –523, –415(b), –447 and –435, supporting a penalty of $740,100. The Report recommended possible remedies, including assessment of penalties, as noted, and refunds to customers of fees wrongly charged, as well as the removal and replacement of management by persons involved with the violations and intentional bad acts described (including All American CEO Michael Gray).
The Report, signed by examiner Mike Garrard and Director of the Department's Consumer Finance Division Taft Webb, directed that All American respond to the Report in writing within 45 days to address the matters contained in the Report, and recited that the Department was not "unwilling to further discuss resolution or consider alternative suggested remedies." It warned, however, that if the parties were unable to agree on specific terms and conditions under which the Licensee might continue to operate, "the Department may recommend that all licenses now held by Licensee be revoked following consideration of Licensee's response and the subsequent issuance ‘Commissioner's Findings and Order’ [sic] in this matter."
All American did not respond to the letter. Instead, on Friday, January 29, 2016, one business day before the deadline set forth in the Department's letter, All American filed a Verified Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief asserting claims against Corley, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Department, and against John and Jane Doe defendants (identified as agents of the Department), alleging that the Department and its agents have "engaged in an intentional and/or negligent campaign of irrational, unreasonable, unnecessary, and illegal actions intended to deprive All American of its Constitutionally-protected rights." All American pled claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violation of its rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and for violation of its rights under Article III of the Mississippi Constitution, and sought damages and injunctive relief.7 It contemporaneously filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, asking that the court enter an order "prohibiting the Defendant from revoking All American's licenses to operate, seizing All American's assets, or taking any other steps intended to bring closure to All American."
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blakely v. Andrade
...and second, when the prosecution or proceeding is taken in bad faith or for the purpose to harass." All Am. Check Cashing, Inc. v. Corley , 191 F.Supp.3d 646, 660 (S.D. Miss. 2016) (citations omitted) (citing cases). A federal court must abstain from entering an injunction "unless the movan......
-
Thomas v. State
...deter constitutionally protected conduct; and second, when the prosecution or proceeding is taken in bad faith or for the purpose to harass." All American Check Cashing, Inc. v. Corley , 191 F.Supp.3d 646, 660 (S.D. Miss. 2016) (citations omitted) (citing cases). If the exception applies, a......
-
Robinson v. Standard Mortg. Corp.
... ... STANDARD MORTGAGE CORPORATION and Standard Mortgage Insurance Agency, Inc. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-4123 United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana ... ...
-
Hughes v. City of Southaven
...779 F.2d 277, 280 (5th Cir. 1985). Hughes bears a "heavy burden" to show this exception applies. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc. v. Corley, 191 F. Supp. 3d 646, 660 (S.D. Miss.), aff'd, 671 F. App'x 275 (5th Cir. 2016). She must show that state officials proceeded "without hope of obtaining a v......