Seventh Amendment
CashCall Inc. v. CFPB
Date: March 2, 2026
Issue: Whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) claim of “legal” restitution triggered CashCall’s right to a jury trial and whether CashCall validly waived that right when circuit precedent did not allow a jury demand.
Case Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit decision that ordered CashCall to pay more than $134 million in legal restitution.
In 2013, the CFPB sued CashCall, alleging it engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in connection with a tribal lending program that offered high-cost loans structured to avoid state usury laws. CashCall, a California-based lender that made unsecured, high-interest consumer loans, worked with a lender affiliated with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe to issue loans under tribal law. CashCall then purchased the loans and collected payments from borrowers. The CFPB alleged this arrangement evaded state interest rate limits and rendered the loans invalid under state law, which made CashCall’s collection efforts unlawful because they sought to enforce legally unenforceable obligations.
The Central District of California granted partial summary judgment to the CFPB on liability, and the parties later waived their right to a jury trial, so the court held a bench trial on remedies. The district court initially imposed a $10.3 million civil penalty and denied restitution. On appeal, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed liability, vacated the penalty, and remanded the case for further restitution proceedings, with instructions to impose a higher penalty. On remand, the district court ruled that the CFPB sought legal restitution and awarded more than $134 million based on consumer losses. The court rejected arguments that restitution must be limited to net profits and applied a burden-shifting framework to calculate the award, ultimately concluding that restitution could reflect the full amount of consumer losses rather than CashCall’s profits. In response, CashCall appealed the district court’s decision again.
On appeal, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. CashCall argued the CFPB’s request for legal restitution triggered its right to a jury trial. For this reason, it could not have knowingly waived that right, as binding circuit precedent treats restitution as an equitable remedy that does not permit a jury demand. Rejecting this argument, the panel held that CashCall validly waived any jury-trial right. The panel explained a valid waiver requires only a knowing and voluntary decision based on the facts, not a correct understanding of the law. By expressly agreeing to a bench trial, CashCall confirmed that agreement in a joint status report and proceeded through trial without objection.
The panel also rejected CashCall’s argument that the CFPB improperly recharacterized the district court’s restitution award as legal rather than equitable. According to CashCall, the CFPB engaged in a bait-and-switch by first characterizing the district court’s remedy as equitable to avoid a jury trial and later recasting it as legal to obtain a larger monetary award. CashCall also argued the CFPB should be barred from seeking legal restitution under doctrines such as judicial estoppel and waiver, and that any restitution should be limited to net profits rather than total consumer losses. Rejecting these arguments, the panel explained the CFPB consistently sought the same relief, a monetary award equal to consumer losses, and this label did not change the remedy’s substance. The panel upheld the restitution award and observed that legal restitution may reflect consumer losses rather than limit recovery to net profits. It also found that the district court properly applied a burden-shifting framework to calculate unjust gains.
In September 2025, CashCall petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, arguing the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicted with Supreme Court precedent and decisions from other circuits. CashCall contended the Ninth Circuit’s rule that no form of restitution triggers the right to a jury trial is plainly incorrect, particularly where the government seeks legal restitution beyond net profits. This, according to CashCall, should qualify as a common-law remedy requiring a jury. Moreover, CashCall explained that the Ninth Circuit compounded this error by holding that it had waived its right to a jury trial: a party cannot knowingly waive a constitutional right when binding circuit precedent at the time made any such right unavailable. CashCall emphasized the Ninth Circuit undermined the Seventh Amendment and deepened an existing circuit split on jury trial rights and waiver. However, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review without providing further commentary.
Bottom Line: The U.S. Supreme Court allowed a Ninth Circuit ruling to stand that required CashCall to pay more than $134 million in legal restitution and found that it waived any right to a jury trial.
Documents: Petition; Ninth Circuit Opinion
