Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
237 F. Supp. 3d 130 (2017)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Saliha Madden (plaintiff), a New York resident, opened a credit card with Bank of America in April 2005 with an annual percentage rate of 32.34 percent. In August 2006, Madden was notified that a new entity would be administering the credit card and received a change in terms stating that beginning in October 2006, her cardholder agreement would be governed by Delaware law. In November 2010, Midland Funding, LLC (Midland) (defendant), a debt collector, purchased Madden’s outstanding debt of $5,291.25. In May 2011, Midland sued Madden in state court in New York to collect the debt. The case was later dismissed, and Madden filed suit against Midland in federal district court in New York, asserting several claims stemming from Midland’s attempts to collect interest on her debt that violated New York usury laws. New York’s civil usury cap prohibited interest rates of more than 16 percent on debts that were not in default, and New York’s criminal usury cap made charging more than 25 percent interest a felony. Delaware did not have a usury law, and creditors could charge any interest rate. Midland moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the cardholder agreement had a Delaware choice-of-law clause, Madden’s claims failed as a matter of law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Seibel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.