|
ERICK C. CARTER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, v. WELLES-BOWEN REALTY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 05-07427—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.
Argued: April 28, 2008
Decided and Filed: January 23, 2009
Before: BATCHELDER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; BARZILAY, Judge.
BARZILAY, Judge. This appeal involves the issue of whether an allegation that section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, has been violated confers standing even if the consumer does not allege an above-market rate charge for services, i.e. an “overcharge.” The district court, in an opinion and order granting the Defendants-Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss, held Plaintiffs-Appellants lacked standing to bring a claim under § 2607 because they did not allege any overcharge or other concrete injury. See Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 493 F. Supp. 2d 921, 927 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (“Carter I”). Appellants now appeal, arguing that this court should reject the district court’s “overcharge approach” to standing. For the reasons stated below, the court reverses the decision of the district court and remands the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
|
DEREK BARR; ROGER CRAIG WHITE and CHRIS WHITE, by and through their parent and guardian ROGER WHITE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STEVE LAFON, in his individual and official capacity as Principal of William Blount High School; ALVIN HORD, in his official capacity as Director of Schools; and THE BLOUNT COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendants-Appellees. |
|
Filed: January 23, 2009
Before: MOORE and CLAY, Circuit Judges; and SCHWARZER, District Judge.
The court having received a petition for rehearing en banc, and the petition having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court, and less than a majority of the judges having favored the suggestion, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the original panel.
The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Accordingly, the petition is denied.