U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC: Consumer’s Victory Before Second Circuit Stands

author by Daniel Schlanger on Sep. 07, 2016

Lawsuit & Dispute Class Action 

Summary: Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC

The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, in which Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP represents a putative class of approximately 50,000 consumers seeking to hold debt buyer Midland Funding, LLC liable for attempting to collect interest in excess of New York’s criminal usury rate of 25 percent.

The Second Circuit held in May 2015 that National Bank Act preemption does not apply to third party debt buyers in situations where there is no continuing national bank involvement post-assignment, reversing the District Court’s ruling on this issue.  Following the Second Circuit’s opinion, Midland sought re-hearing, with several major banking and financial industry organizations filing amicus briefs in support.  After rehearing was denied, Midland petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case, again with the support of numerous industry amici. The Supreme Court denied Midland’s petition without discussion.

Dan Schlanger, who heads Kakalec & Schlanger’s consumer practice, handled Plaintiff’s Second Circuit appeal.  Before the Supreme Court, Plaintiff was represented by Dan Schlanger, Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell, and Professor Sam Bagenstos of University of Michigan Law School.  The case is currently pending before the District Court, with cross motions for class certification and summary judgment pending.

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.

© 2025 LAWYER.COM INC.

Use of this website constitutes acceptance of Lawyer.com’s Terms of Use, Email, Phone, & Text Message and Privacy Policies.