CashCall litigation
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. CashCall Inc.
Date: Sept. 11, 2026
Issue: Whether CashCall is entitled to relief from the amended judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6) based on satisfaction of the prior judgment, changes in law, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) enforcement priorities.
Case Summary: A California federal court denied CashCall’s motion for relief from a post-remand judgment requiring the company to pay more than $134 million in restitution.
In 2013, 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. 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 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment to 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 first 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. The $10.3 million award addressed only the civil penalty, while restitution was a separate remedy that the district court had initially denied.
On remand, the district court ruled that 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. CashCall appealed again.
A unanimous Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that CashCall knowingly and voluntarily waived any right to a jury trial when it agreed to a bench trial and proceeded without objection. The panel rejected CashCall’s argument that its waiver was invalid because CFPB had characterized the requested restitution as equitable rather than legal when CashCall agreed to the bench trial. The panel also found that CFPB consistently sought the same restitution based on consumer losses, regardless of how it characterized the remedy. The panel therefore upheld the restitution award and the district court’s method for calculating unjust gains. CashCall petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in September 2025, but the Court declined review without comment.
On June 25, 2026, CashCall moved for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(5) allows relief when a judgment has been satisfied, rests on a vacated judgment, or is no longer equitable to enforce prospectively. CashCall argued that the judgment met each ground because it had been satisfied, relied on a vacated judgment, and became inequitable after changes in law, shifts in CFPB’s enforcement position, and failed settlement talks. CashCall also sought relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a catchall provision that permits vacatur for “any other reason that justifies relief.” On August 19, 2026, CFPB opposed the motion, arguing that the judgment remained unsatisfied, did not depend on a vacated judgment, and required only payment of money rather than prospective relief. CFPB also argued that changes in law, its decisions in other cases, and failed settlement talks did not justify relief under either rule.
Judge John Walter of the Central District of California sided with CFPB, ruling that CashCall failed to justify relief under either Rule 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6). The court ruled that CashCall had not satisfied the amended judgment and that its earlier $10 million payment did not satisfy the later award. The court also determined that the judgment was not prospective because it only required CashCall to pay money and did not require ongoing court supervision. And the court rejected CashCall’s arguments based on changes in law, CFPB’s enforcement priorities, and failed settlement talks, finding that CashCall had already raised or could have raised those issues, and that CFPB’s actions in other matters did not make the judgment inequitable.
The court also ruled that CashCall failed to show the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court noted that the Ninth Circuit had already rejected CashCall’s arguments about CFPB’s authority and its jury-trial rights, and that the district court had not relied on Chevron deference in its liability ruling. The court also ruled that CFPB promptly sought to enforce the amended judgment and acted without bad faith. The court concluded that CashCall’s motion did not present extraordinary circumstances and instead sought to delay enforcement of the judgment further. The court emphasized that CashCall’s motion was “simply an ill-conceived tactic designed to continue to delay the CFPB’s enforcement of the Amended Judgment.”
Bottom Line: The district court denied CashCall’s Rule 60(b) motion, finding no basis to disturb the judgment or delay CFPB’s enforcement of it.
Document: Opinion
